Science of the Total Environment 796 (2021) 148605

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

How can vegetation protect us from air pollution? A critical review on

green spaces' mitigation abilities for air-borne particles from a public
health perspective - with implications for urban planning
Arnt Diener b,c,⁎, Pierpaolo Mudu a,b
a
Department of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
b
European Centre for Environment and Health, Regional Office for Europe, World Health Organization, Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1, 53113 Bonn, North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany
c
Institute of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Centre for Health and Society, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University of Düsseldorf, Gurlittstr 55/II, 40223 Düsseldorf, North-Rhine
Westphalia, Germany

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Green spaces can affect air quality by

particle deposition, dispersion, modifi-
cation.
• Evidence is ineffectively linked amid
disciplines, especially for health impli-
cations.
• Composite effects varying by context
and scale motivate adapted green
interventions.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Air pollution causes the largest death toll among environmental risks globally, but interventions to purify ambi-
Received 19 March 2021 ent air remain inadequate. Vegetation and green spaces have shown reductive effects on air-borne pollutants
Received in revised form 29 May 2021 concentrations, especially of particulate matter (PM). Guidance on green space utilisation for air quality control
Accepted 18 June 2021
remains scarce, however, as does its application in practise. To strengthen the foundation for research and inter-
Available online 24 June 2021
ventions, we undertook a critical review of the state of science from a public health perspective.
Editor: Pavlos Kassomenos We used inter-disciplinary search strategies for published reviews on green spaces and air pollution in key scien-
tific databases. Using the PRISMA checklist, we systematically identified reviews with quantitative analyses. For
each of the presented PM mitigation mechanisms, we conducted additional searches focused on the most recent
Keywords: articles published between 2016 and early 2021.
Air quality The included reviews differentiate three mitigation mechanisms of green spaces for PM: deposition, dispersion
Green intervention and modification. The most studied mechanism is deposition, particularly measures of mass and settling velocity
Pollution mitigation of PM on plant leaves. We consolidate how green space setups differ by scale and context in their potentials to
Human health
reduce peak exposures, stationary (point) or mobile (line) pollution sources, and the potentially most harmful
Plants
PM components. The assessed findings suggest diverse optimisation options for green space interventions, par-
Risk-based management
ticularly concerning plant selection, spatial setup, ventilation and maintenance – all alongside the consideration
of supplementary vegetation effects like on temperature or water.
Green spaces' reductive effects on air-borne PM concentrations are considerable, multi-mechanistic and varied
by scale, context and vegetation characteristics. Such effect-modifying factors must be considered when rethink-
ing public space design, as accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Weak linkages amid involved disciplines

⁎ Corresponding author at: Institute of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Gurlittstrasse 55/II, 40223 Düsseldorf, Germany.
E-mail address: arnt.diener@hhu.de (A. Diener).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148605
0048-9697/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Diener and P. Mudu Science of the Total Environment 796 (2021) 148605

motivate the development of a research framework to strengthen health-oriented guidance. We conclude on an

urgent need for an integrated and risk-based approach to PM mitigation through green space interventions.
© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Review approach and protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Search strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Study selection and qualitative analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Search outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Mechanism 1: deposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Mechanism 2: dispersion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Mechanism 3: modification of PM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Green spaces' mitigation mechanisms for PM exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Public health relevance at different scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Risk-based approach for green-space interventions to mitigate air pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4. Research gaps and outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.5. Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Declaration of competing interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1. Introduction research results on the interaction between groups of plants or vege-

Ambient air pollution is estimated to cause over 4 million premature
deaths annually, while in several regions levels of air pollution are yet
increasing (Shaddick et al., 2020; Neira and Prüss-Ustün, 2016). Expo-
sure to air pollutants increases the short-term and long-term risk for
cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in particular (Thurston et al.,
2017). A primary concern for research and policy is ambient air-borne
particulate matter (PM), which comes in different sizes and chemical
and biological compositions (Di et al., 2017; Ali et al., 2019). PM causes
the majority of the disease burden attributed to air pollutants, of which
more than half relates to ambient exposures by inhalation (IHME,
2019). Among the major risk factors threatening human health globally
in terms of its disease burden, PM has recently been ranked fifth, and
thus first among environmental risks (Cohen et al., 2017). The public
health benefit of a reduction in PM concentrations is well understood.
Yet, we remain limited in managing air quality beyond emissions con-
trol (Burns et al., 2019). Meanwhile, research rapidly grows on evaluat-
ing the ameliorating effects of plants and vegetation on PM and of
underlying physical, biological and chemical mechanisms (Janhäll,
2015; Aerts et al., 2018; Egorov et al., 2016; Crouse et al., 2019; Wolf
et al., 2020). Rapid urbanisation and an increasing awareness for the ef-
fects of the natural environment on our health have motivated numer-
ous studies on outdoor land plants, or in urban planning terminology
“green space” and “greenness”, as interventions able to protect our
health from ambient air pollution at difference scales.
Though there is not an agreed definition of “green spaces”, also due
to cultural and disciplinary differences, they are commonly understood
as outdoor, on-land vegetation (Egorov et al., 2016; Taylor and Hochuli,
2017). The expression “green spaces” may not be usual among forestry,
biology or ecology scholars, but is commonly employed in public health
and particularly in epidemiology to denote an indicator of exposure to
greenness (e.g. measured by the normalized difference vegetation
index (NDVI)). The concept is utilised, among others, for modelling
tated areas and public health (e.g. Egorov et al., 2016). This is practical,
though notably a simplification when considering the complexity of
(urban) land covers and ecosystems, which types and characteristics
of green spaces can influence health effect estimates.
Research stretching across geographic and disciplinary borders has
shown beneficial effects of improving the quantity and quality of
green spaces for health effects and the mitigation of environmental
risks. Among the so-called ecosystem services, one benefit is the afore-
mentioned air quality amelioration function by alterations of the con-
centration of air pollutants (TEEB, 2010). Correspondingly, various
health benefits have been identified for green space users and residents
of adjacent neighbourhoods (Rojas-Rueda et al., 2019; WHO, 2021),
with some benefits even reaching beyond a local scale (Annerstedt
Van Den Bosch et al., 2016). Epidemiological studies differentiating
the health benefits of green spaces by the composition of air pollution
or PM are few. Green spaces can affect human health directly through
a number of factors, thus requiring complex epidemiological study
setups for a mediation analysis on the indirect effects via air quality
amelioration (Lachowycz and Jones, 2013). However, changes in PM
concentrations can be modelled for morbidity and mortality based on
a well-established evidence base.
From the available evidence overviews, the conceptual and mecha-
nistic complexity of the green spaces and air pollution topic becomes
evident judging by the variety of involved (sub-)disciplines and per-
spectives (Sun and Zhu, 2019). Recent reviews build on evidence pro-
duced by research in, among others, atmospheric sciences, plant
biochemistry or urban planning (e.g. Janhäll, 2015; Wolf et al., 2020).
An estimation of the (indirect) health effect of green spaces through
air quality amelioration is hardly trivial. Firstly, the underlying mecha-
nisms are highly complicated (e.g. Janhäll, 2015). Secondly, epidemio-
logical assessments, for instance through mediation analysis, are
aggravated by complex causal pathways and the fact that green space
interventions cause several direct health effects (Eisenman et al.,

2
A. Diener and P. Mudu
2019; Markevych et al., 2017; Vienneau et al., 2017). As a consequence,
the epidemiological evidence base remains small and green space ef-
fects on air pollution may be underrepresented, including in topical eco-
nomic valuations (Kumar et al., 2019; Arantes et al., 2019). Recent
evaluations of research around green spaces, particularly trees, and
public health show a stark increase of publications in the first two de-
cades of this century (Zhang et al., 2020a). This holds particularly for
the association between air pollution and green spaces (Xu et al.,
2020), for which Badach et al. (2020) finds research hardly being
utilised for urban planning. The Covid-19 related restrictions in 2020
and 2021 and the related increasing relevance of public spaces and
green spaces make for an opportune time to reflect on the current evi-
dence base across disciplines to better orient planning (e.g. Honey-
Rosés et al., 2020; Pouso et al., 2021). This review is to draw a picture
of what evidence is available and whether and how it can guide the se-
lection and effective implementation of practical interventions.
Our objective is to present and critically reflect on the current state
of science around the mitigating potential of green spaces for the con-
centration and toxicity of ambient PM. We want to describe the key
mechanisms and associated determinants for their mitigation effects.
The results are to provide guidance and a direction for future research.
We expect that developments in technology, data availability and qual-
ity, as well as new or enhanced assessment methodologies have allowed
significant improvements in recent years. Two main research questions
guided this work: Firstly, we evaluated to what extent green spaces are
able to affect PM exposure at different spatial scales to improve public
health. Secondly, we used search outputs to structure the mitigating
mechanisms and factors affecting green spaces' potential to reduce con-
centration and toxicity of ambient PM.
2. Methods
2.1. Review approach and protocol
We combined the methodology of a critical review - on the basis of a
systematic literature search on the current state of science - and
complemented it with exploratory literature searches on the individual
mechanisms (deposition, dispersion, modification) for different green
space setups (such as hedges and parks), particle sizes and spatial
scales. We used methodological guidance as provided by Grant and
Booth (2009) and Sutton et al. (2019) on systematic literature searches
for orientation. For search strategy refinement, we made use of the
PRESS Guidelines Evidence-Based Checklist (McGowan et al., 2016).
We documented the process of identifying relevant publications with
the PRISMA checklist (Moher et al., 2009). In summary, we have con-
ducted: 1) a primary literature review of published reviews on the ef-
fects of green spaces on PM concentrations, and 2) a series of
secondary literature reviews on the identified PM mitigation mecha-
nisms, with a focus on the papers published during the past five years
(2016 to 2020).
2.2. Search strategy
Reflecting the multi-disciplinarity of the relevant body of publica-
tions, as evident from current reviews on urban green spaces and air
pollution, we chose “Web of Science” (Core Collection), “MEDLINE”
and “Scopus” as the main databases to search. We complemented
their results with searches in “Google Scholar” by using the software
“Harzing's Publish or Perish” to avoid personalisation bias by the search
engine. For the selection of databases and respective search procedures,
we consulted guidance provided by Livoreil et al. (2017), Bramer et al.
(2017), Atkinson and Cipriani (2018), Cooper et al. (2018), and for soft-
ware solutions Muka et al. (2020) and Lefebvre et al. (2019). To orga-
nize review results by sub-topics, we used the reference management
software “Mendeley”. For the review of abstracts and full-texts, we
used the systematic literature review software “Covidence”.
3
Science of the Total Environment 796 (2021) 148605
We developed the search terms for the systematic search in three
databases along guidance by Grant and Booth (2009) and Sutton et al.
(2019). We grouped search terms in (a) outcome, (b) intervention
and (c) mechanism (see supplementary material). The development
of the search terms effectively included (a) an assessment of terminol-
ogy use for over 100 topical papers, (b) trial searches to improve speci-
ficity and sensitivity and to calibrate the search term to include pre-
defined key articles, (c) correction of the search term along the PRESS
Guidelines and reflecting on typical errors as identified by Sampson
and McGowan (2006), (d) adjustment of search terms for selected data-
bases, and (e) a series of supplemental searches, including hand
searches in key thematic journals and reference tracking for selected pa-
pers. For Google Scholar, advanced search terms are limited in length,
which we replaced by a combination of separate searches.
2.3. Study selection and qualitative analysis
Studies published in peer-reviewed journals in English language be-
fore 10 March 2021 were included based on pre-defined search terms
and eligibility criteria for the databases of Web of Science, MEDLINE,
Scopus and Google Scholar. We excluded studies that focus on air qual-
ity in indoor settings and quasi-indoor settings like tunnels or mines.
We only included scientific papers considering changes in ambient PM
concentration as an outcome. The studies' methodology and published
results had to allow a clear distinction of a relative or absolute change
of the outcome due to green spaces. This excluded studies that relate
green spaces with measured health effects (for example epidemiologi-
cal studies) without quantitative data on the underlying mitigation
mechanisms. The selected papers also should have assessed one or
more properties of green spaces, with relevance to their air pollution
mitigation potential, allowing a characterization into urban design fac-
tors (such as vegetation density, height, biodiversity, dimensions, rela-
tive location) and vegetation or plant properties (such as species, leaf
structure, condition). For the primary analysis, we only included studies
categorised as reviews and focused on the mitigation of ambient PM. For
the secondary analysis, we focused on papers published between
01.01.2016 and 31.12.2020 to reflect the recent developments in the
scientific discourse. The secondary searches were conducted using
modifications of the primary search terms to respectively filter results
of primary studies according to the three identified mechanisms for
PM mitigation.
As our objective was to gain an overview of health-relevant mecha-
nisms, i.e. reductions of human exposure to PM, we extracted data, re-
sults and conclusions from (review) papers using that perspective. For
analysis, we identified the mechanism or combination of mechanisms
studied, and reflected on the methodology and setup of the research,
before categorising its numeric results and its assessment of agreements
and gaps for result presentation. We supplemented the insights gained
from the identified reviews with recently published articles on PM mit-
igation and reviews covering procedural aspects of these mitigation
functions in more detail.
2.4. Definitions
For the purpose of this review, we defined “green space” as the inter-
vention rather generally as both man-made and natural on-land vegeta-
tion in outdoor areas (after Egorov et al., 2016). Some researchers use
the term “urban forests” almost synonymously (Han et al., 2020), as
such definition may cover dense urban forests, but also individual street
trees and green walls (Egorov et al., 2016). Green spaces may interact
with PM as a system or as individual plant elements – thus this review
covers both existing and planned (urban) green space interventions.
For the investigated mitigating or reductive mechanisms, a key term is
“deposition”, that we considered in terms of dry deposition and defined
it as a temporary or permanent residence of PM on the surface of a plant,
either by “adsorption” or by gravitative settling. Plants may also
A. Diener and P. Mudu
“absorb” PM through their stomata or cell membranes of its elements,
particularly their leaves. Deposited PM may undergo “resuspension”
into the air, typically influenced by wind, and “removal” by wash-off
from leaves or, for instance, during defoliation. In a risk management
context, the term “mitigation” may describe a reduction of the probabil-
ity and/or the severity of a risk – here: exposure to air-borne PM -
whether by reductions of air-borne PM concentration or toxicity. We
defined the change in concentration of PM as our main outcome of in-
terest. We included effect estimates for any PM size range and constitu-
ent, thus permitting interpretation of PM potential toxicity effects as a
secondary outcome. We defined “PM” as the ambient, concentration
of air-borne particles, both from natural and anthropogenic sources,
measured both below a diameter of 10 μm (PM10 or coarse PM) or
below a diameter of 2.5 μm (PM2.5 or fine PM) (WHO, 2006a). The
lower size limit is set by the measuring or modelling approach of the re-
spective research, while assessments of ultra-fine and quasi ultra-fine
particles around and below 0.1 μm (UFP) are a relatively recent devel-
opment (Ohlwein et al., 2019), and typically not measured in weight
but particle number concentration (PNC). PM exposure can be miti-
gated by reducing its concentration (measured in weight or particle
number concentration) or (biological) toxicity, for example carcinoge-
nicity, in terms of particularly health-threatening PM components and
sizes (e.g. Jia et al., 2017; Shin et al., 2017).
An assessment of green spaces' air amelioration effects can be con-
ducted at different scales. For our analysis of the identified literature,
we grouped the common scales existent for green space and for air pol-
lution research into two scales: a “local scale” that may range from
around 10 m to about 500 m (qualified by Tiwari et al. (2019) as the mi-
croscale for modelling), depending on how far local emissions and their
possible mitigation can be differentiated from background concentra-
tions; and a city or district scale that we define as a “regional scale”
that covers wider geographical areas (Labib et al., 2020). The local
scale includes a “personal/body scale” that varies between 10 and 100
m and considers the immediate surroundings of the human body and
a “neighbourhood” scale that defines the areas, usually around the res-
idence, where the majority of the people spend large amounts of their
time (Labib et al., 2020). In fact, the local scale may relate to a single
tree or a green pocket, to parks and small tree stands (such as used by
Han et al., 2020). The existence of multiple scales of green spaces is fur-
ther complicated by the air pollution distribution patterns and most of
the studies investigate the relationships between health and urban
green space by exposure assessments within different buffer zone dis-
tances. This complexity is often tackled without clear distinctions, thus
Fig. 1. PRISMA flow chart on the literature selection process for this review. Chart modified after (Moher et al., 2009).
4
Science of the Total Environment 796 (2021) 148605
hindering for instance the differentiation of local emissions (and inter-
ventions) from urban or rural pollution background levels.
3. Results
3.1. Search outputs
All searches together identified almost 5000 papers in the three pri-
mary databases (last update on: 10.03.2021) and complemented with
searches in Google Scholar. After removal of duplicates for our primary
search, we identified 12 review papers that met the inclusion criteria –
of which one could not be made available to us despite requests (Fig. 1).
The identified reviews were published between 1973 and 2020 by re-
searchers working in Asia, Europe and North America (Table 1). Their
overall topical focus lies on “dry deposition” of PM on vegetation leaves.
We complemented these systematic searches with several secondary
searches in the four databases using specific keywords for the individual
mitigating mechanisms as suggested by analyses of the 11 reviews.
We find that evidence-based discussions on green spaces as a con-
trol measure for air pollution - with a focus on human health and
amenity - have been ongoing since over a century (Smith, 1977). We
identified the first review of such evidence dating back to 1973
(Warren, 1973). Warren (1973) identified 92 abstracts of which 10
were rated “directly relevant”, and which were complemented with a
search of 36,000 “technical documents”. Only a few years later, Smith
(1977) reviewed the same topic for its effects on human health. We
found most papers to echo improvements of human health as the
ultimate objective, with the majority of studies fitting under the um-
brella of the question: “how can green space improve the air that we
breathe?”
Quantitative assessments of the effect of green spaces on PM are typ-
ically conducted and reported using three different approaches:
1) modelling (including a wide range of model types) 2) real-life mea-
surements (such as with mobile air quality measurement devices or
the gravimetry of harvested leaves), and 3) experiments (for instance
using a wind tunnel). Several papers thematise methodological issues
and limited transferability of model estimates to real-life measurements
(e.g. Petroff et al., 2008). Depending on the situation, differences within
and between the methodological categories do not only affect precision,
but also accuracy of a study's conclusion assuming similar conditions –
as argued by Wang et al. (2019) and others.
This review has been set out to be interdisciplinary, as is not uncom-
mon for research in environmental health. One critical step was the
A. Diener and P. Mudu
analysis of terminology use in the field when defining and optimising
the search strategy. For this pre-analysis, we used a non-systematic
sample of one hundred papers. For what we call “green space”, most
studies used the term “vegetation” (115) as compared to “green
space” (61), while for specifications of the involved plant type, more
than half (363 of 578) named “tree(s)”. For the effect of green spaces
on air pollution, the hierarchy of terms was “remove” (109) > “reduce”
(98) > “mitigate” (49); while descriptions of the mechanism were: “de-
posit” (107) > “capture” (98) > “accumulate” (98) > “retain” (65) >
“absorb” (45) > “adsorb” (44) > “disperse” (22) and “filter” (22).
The following Table 1 lists the 11 included reviews and compares
their consideration of the four mitigative effects (“dispersion”, “deposi-
tion”, “modification” and “ventilation”) and their net effect (“removal”).
For further analysis, green-space related ventilation processes are in-
cluded in the mechanism of dispersion, while notably a separate scien-
tific debate exists on (urban) ventilation and associated dilution of air
pollutants (e.g. Peng et al., 2020). It also roughly categorises the spatial
focus into “local” and “regional”, or both. The selected reviews orient
our analysis on some crucial aspects: the important distinction on mit-
igation mechanisms and proper indicators, and the need to consider
multiple scales. The subsequent chapters expand on the reviews' foci
and findings by including recent papers on the three distinguished
mechanisms.
3.2. Mechanism 1: deposition
Quantification attempts around the (dry) deposition of PM on green
spaces dominate the screened search results. A large proportion of re-
search publications and of foci for sectoral review papers select the re-
duction in PM weights and, less commonly, in PNC for their analysis.
Particularly among the reviews, researchers extensively discuss the lim-
itations of current estimation approaches and propose diverse questions
for further research (see Table 1).
Deposition of PM, as previously defined, results from a number of
physico-chemical processes on all above-ground structures of the plants
making up a green space. For a systemic understanding, one may also
include the below-ground elements as summarised by the term rhizo-
sphere. Deposition can be accompanied by physico-chemical and bio-
logical processes that change size and other properties of PM – which
we discuss separately in the sub-chapter on “Modification”. All of the
identified reviews on green spaces' effect on PM put the main or one
focus on deposition mechanisms. Most reviews reason the mitigation
potential of green spaces for PM with some measure of deposition.
The main plant groups, not necessarily reflecting biological taxonomy,
selected in researches on deposition are trees, followed by bushes –
notably with a relatively low representation of grasses, despite their
large proportional land surface coverage in many cities. More
specifically, deposition on leaves dominates the scientific discourse, as
few papers consider, let alone focus on, the deposition values for
stems and branches (for some plants including bark or thorns), flowers
and fruits, or species-distinct features like spines.
Roupsard et al. (2013) found artificial grass to cause 10 to 30 times
more deposition than smooth surfaces, purely by increased friction.
Publications on living plant organisms suggest even higher deposition
activity, as typically measured in deposition velocity or weight indica-
tors (Table 2). Particularly on the plants' leaves more than simple “sur-
face settling” happens: particles can be trapped in the leaves' wax layer,
penetrate the leaves' cell walls or enter the leaves' internal structure
through stomata (see Fig. 2). Particles are not only deposited on the
upper side or adaxial of leaves, but also on the underside or abaxial.
Ottelé et al. (2010) counted about two times the number of particles
on adaxial compared to the abaxial of road-side broad leaves. Terzaghi
et al. (2013) found particles up to the size of PM10 encapsulated in
the leaf's cuticle (which includes aforementioned “wax layer”). Re-
search on leaf physiology has more recently also been extended from
the micro to the nano “level” with recent work, for example by Kwak
5
Science of the Total Environment 796 (2021) 148605
et al. (2020), suggesting nano-structural properties may have a critical
effect on the adsorption and absorption of PM. Popek et al. (2019)
shows that deposition amounts fluctuate daily at high rates, with rain
being able to even wash-out waxed-in PM. Notably, the wash-out effi-
ciency of waxed-in PM appears to depend on the water's mineral con-
tent – with distilled water, as used in many experimental wash-off
setups, likely underestimating this effect. The leaves hydrophilicity
was found to increase deposition (e.g. Bertold et al., 2019).
Deposition values expressed by weight or number of PM are of lim-
ited value and hamper comparability if missing an explicit or implicit
time component. Among plants Cai et al. (2017) show differences be-
tween 1 (herbs) and 2.5 (coniferous trees) g/m2/week based on their
meta-analysis. Cai et al. (2017) estimate that a leaf reaches its maximum
“deposition capacity” after 10 days, while Liu et al. (2013) estimates sat-
uration after 25 days. Popek et al. (2019) suggest PM deposition changes
are highly variable - with up to 35% difference in PM load within one
day, while Schaubroeck et al. (2014) estimates that at the end of a (de-
ciduous) leaves season, only 0.01% of the PM (weight) temporarily de-
posited throughout the season is represented on the leaf. Evergreen or
coniferous vegetation can allow deposition during – in my cities –
particularly polluted winter months, as models by Letter and Jäger
(2020) and Pace and Grote (2020) confirm. Schaubroeck et al. (2014)
also questions how well plant growth (and decay) – taking up a large
proportion of a deciduous plant's annual dynamic – is represented in
currently applied models.
From a health perspective, deposition may lower the total PM
weight and/or number concentration in an area (locally) or regionally.
The indicators used differ across the identified literature, and can only
partially be converted to comparable effect estimates. Few studies ex-
press deposition values in indicators typically used by epidemiologists
or health impact assessments studying air pollution for short-term or
long-term effects (daily, weekly, monthly, seasonal or annual average
and peak concentration values). As we view health-relevant effects by
interventions aimed at a local versus a city or even regional level, the in-
dicators of interest change. We summarise the observed indicators,
their units, and indications of their exemplary value ranges in Table 3.
With an atmospheric chemistry model, Pugh et al. (2012) estimated
a 60% reduction of PM by roadside vegetation with deposition as the
dominant mechanism, while Sillars-Powell et al. (2020) found signifi-
cant positive associations between traffic density and deposited PM on
roadside vegetation. Pegas et al. (2012) conducted an indoor quasi-
experiment with potted plants in a classroom to estimate about 30%
PM10 reduction, inspired by the often quoted study by Wolverton
et al. (1989) commissioned by the United States' National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA).
Nowak (2014), in line with Litschike and Kuttler (2008), estimates
the regional-scale net removal of PM at around 1% weight reduction –
and suggests that urban areas may not be the place to remediate
urban and regional air pollution, but to optimise local exposure condi-
tions. Nemitz et al. (2020) model an overall effect of vegetation for the
UK at around 1% for PM2.5. Park et al. (2020) suggest that the quantity
and spatial configuration of green spaces play a critical role for PM2.5
management in cities, while Letter and Jäger (2020) estimate a 1 km2
forested area sufficient for buffering about 50 days a year with PM10 ex-
ceeding regulatory limits for the city of Graz (0.3 M inhabitants). Nowak
et al. (2018) modelled the positive human health effects of Canada's
trees by deposition at almost USD 200 M. McDonald et al. (2007)
modelled that an increase of vegetation cover from 3.5 to 16.5% in an
English urban region (West Midlands) could decrease primary PM10
concentration by 10%.
Weerakkody et al. (2018) assessed the deposition effect modifica-
tion by leaf characteristics: for PM2.5, they identified significant positive
associations for the adaxial stomatal density and the abaxial ridges,
while for PM10, the adaxial and abaxial stomatal density and the adaxial
& leaf hair/trichomes density showed to increase deposition. Kwak et al.
(2020) concludes that possibly roughness and trichome are critical for
 A. Diener and P. Mudu

Table 1
Included reviews on particulate matter mitigation by green spaces.

Review Number of considered Deposition Dispersion Modification Ventilation Removal Local Regional Review focus Relevant findings Deduced gaps or research needs
papers

(Han et al., 2020) ca 100–150 2 1 0 1 2 2 2 Urban forests' PM “The analyses at different scales indicatedDeficiencies in studying non-leaf
(1970–2019) removal capacity at that the roles of urban forests on PM elements of plants like fruit, bark or
tree, local and could not be simply deemed positive or branches on the tree scale. Overall,
regional scales negative, because they need to be uncertainties for models at the
considered (…) at different scales. (p. 1)”regional scale with a need to conduct
multi-scale analyses
(Xu et al., 2020) 65 (2000–2018) 2 1 0 2 2 2 2 Reduction of Urban wind causes resuspension, while More detail and species' properties is

6
airborne PM by rainfall leads to net removal of PM – with required around leaf-retained PM
urban plants only 10% of analysed papers considering wash-off; introduction of a standard
PM wash-off. Wash-off is critical for the evaluation system for airborne PM
net removal and may require competing reduction based on leaf-retained PM
properties to deposition from plants. wash-off mass a useful step
(Saylor et al., 2019) ca 21 (1982–2015) 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 Review of PM dry Models underestimate PM deposition “New measurement technologies and
deposition potential, with deviations for forested the improved accuracy of older
modelling surfaces by up to two orders of technologies now allow (…) to revisit
approaches review magnitude old assumptions and fashion new (or
improved versions of the old)
theories and algorithms of the
particle dry deposition process
(p. 18)”
(Cai et al., 2017) 150 (1960–2016) 2 0 0 0 2 1 2 Spatio-temporal Roughly 90% of particles deposited on “Evaluations (…) ignore
variation in PM leaves are fine PM; it takes 10 days to re-suspension, BVOC emissions and
deposition by plant “fill” a leaf rainfall erosion (p.216)”, thus a
leaf area “unified system of evaluation criteria
for PM deposition by plants (p.216)”
is required;
Deposition and re-suspension
happen simultaneously, which may
be an issue for a lot of weight-based
measurements
(Janhäll, 2015) ca. 80 (1981–2015) 2 2 0 1 2 2 2 Physical effects of “(…) effect of vegetation on urban air The research areas on deposition and
urban vegetation on quality depends on vegetation design and dispersion need to be combined –
PM and role of on level of air pollution (p.135)”; and research described in great
design or layout deposition of coarse particles peaks at details to allow comparisons.
choices high wind speeds, of ultra-fine particles Guidance factors for urban vegetation
at low speeds should be grouped and aligned with
other ecosystem processes.
Science of the Total Environment 796 (2021) 148605
 (Litschike and ca. 24 (1911–2008) 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 Speed Assessment “The average published (deposition) Need for more in-situ studies
Kuttler, 2008) of the velocities of value (~1 cm s−1) corresponds to a
PM deposition and reduction in pollutant concentration
their mitigation (PM10) of about 1% in urban areas
effect at different (p.229).”
scales
A. Diener and P. Mudu

(Pryor et al., 2008) ca.80 (1979–2007) 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 Measurement and From an urban perspective, landscape Increase consistency of approaches
modelling heterogeneity, particularly forest edges for measurements to allow joint
information on enhance turbulence and pollution interpretation, and understand the
particle-surface advection interpretation; fills gaps in
exchange; understanding biological surface
quantification of interaction (including the underlying
particle fluxes ground) for deposition efficiency
(Petroff et al., 2008) ca.60 (1972–2007) 2 1 0 0 1 1 2 Knowledge Model results show large difference Leaf area index values should be
synthesis on dry between models due to their differing included in analytical models as
deposition aerosol collection expressions common in differential models and
modelling and canopy media and is vegetation
experiments elements explicitly described;
overall, deposition velocities much
more uncertain than deposition
concentrations
(Beckett et al., ca. 31 (1965–1997) 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 Role of urban “Pattern of particle deposition in urban Understand what drives particulate
1998) vegetation and areas is (…) complicated” and thus removal in plants and how it can be
woodlands to “planting should be optimised in local maximised in urban plantings
reduce effects of pollution ‘hotspots’ (p. 357)”
PM
(Smith and ca 86 (1899–1977) 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 PM removal effects High levels late in growing season; Residence time of PM on plant;
Staskawicz, 1977) for human and stomatal blockages; trichomes as effects on photosynthesis and
vegetative health accumulators; “(Trees) absorb at once microbes (vegetative health)
the malicious emanations and gases of

7
decomposition, and abstract their
poisonous properties for their own
consumption (p.185).”
(Warren, 1973) 10 + ca 180 2 2 0 2 1 2 2 Role of plants and “Green space can be a viable and efficient “It is critically important to assess the
(1893–1973) soil as sinks for air secondary, non-source means of air efficiency of this surface for particle
pollution and the pollution control (p. 3).” capture in areas with contaminated
filtering and “(For point sources) forest strips should atmospheres. Important (p. 195).”
sorption effects of be planted to funnel prevailing winds
vegetation on air into areas with the highest pollutant
pollution concentrations (p.4).”

Note: For the numbered columns, a “0” stands for “not covered” by the review, a “1” for considered and a “2” for covered as a focus of the review.
Science of the Total Environment 796 (2021) 148605
A. Diener and P. Mudu Science of the Total Environment 796 (2021) 148605

Table 2
Variables – Outcome indicators for deposition of PM on vegetation.

Outcome indicator Unit Local scale effect ranges Key papers

Deposition velocity (Vd) cm per sec 0.01–36A1 A1

(Litschike and Kuttler, 2008)
0.02–30 A2 A2
(Jeanjean et al., 2016)
Deposition amount (weight or PNC) μg/cm2 per hour 0.09–25.6B1 B1
(Viecco et al., 2018)
3.85–9.78B2 B2
(Zhang et al., 2017)
μg/cm2 per day 9.49–75.4 (by species)B3 B3
(Jia et al., 2020)
g/m2 per week 1.71 (across species)C1 C1
(Cai et al., 2017)
0.08–5.98 (by species)C1
Deposited fraction of air-borne PM (before/after vegetation) % <15%E1 E1
(Viippola et al., 2020)

Note: The deposition velocity (Vd) is a common indicator for dry deposition and mainly depends on particles sizes, concentration and meteorological factors.

Several papers and reviews challenge the focus on deposition veloc-

Fig. 2. Symbolic illustration of the sorption processes of PM at a leaf's scale. Source: own
design.
adsorption, while stomata are not. Modelling approaches by a number
of researchers largely agree on peak dry deposition velocities for very
small (mainly UFP) and large (coarse particles and larger) PM with a
“dip” roughly around the 1 μm size range, depending on vegetation
types and other model variables (Giardina and Buffa, 2018). Xing and
Brimblecombe (2019) estimates the deposited fraction of fine PM or
PM2.5 – compared with coarse particles – on plants at around 90%.
The number of effect modifying variables and their interdependencies
is complex overall (see supplementary material). Debates on species se-
lection alone, as one of several categories of relevant variables, has mo-
tivated to propose a “Species-Specific Air Quality Index” (Sicard et al.,
2018), du e to the critical effect of species selection for different circum-
stances and functions.
ities and amounts (as exemplary depicted in Table 2) and call for a more
integrated assessment including wash-off (precipitation) (e.g. Xu et al.,
2020; Popek et al., 2019) and resuspension (wind) (e.g. Schaubroeck
et al., 2014). For the so-called recharge of deposition capacity, wind
and rain are in focus. This focus implies that other forms of precipitation
(such as fog or snow) and other recharge-relevant processes on the
plants surface, like physico-chemical or biological modifications of de-
posited PM, may yet need to gain attention among this research field.
Furthermore, for most plants in the focus of existing analyses, the sur-
face area during foliated periods is dominated by leaves (e.g. Petroff
et al., 2008). However, depending on the climatic zone, either plants
with long defoliated periods (framed by growing and withering phases)
or plant species with proportionally small leaf surfaces, for instance of
the cactaceae family, motivate to widen this focus to other plant struc-
tures. Several reviews point out issues of defoliation – which, from a
health perspective, may overlap with a period of elevated PM exposure
due to its likely association with (increased) domestic heating in some
climatic zones. Similarly, regions with arid or hyper-arid climates may
be exposed to higher concentrations of (natural) dust and associated
PM, while the local, natural vegetation is characterised by a relatively
high proportion of plants with small leaf surfaces compared to the
plant's total surface.
3.3. Mechanism 2: dispersion
A second research priority are green spaces' so-called “dispersion”
mechanisms, i.e. mainly how plants change the trajectory and velocity
of PM through its physical structure. Notably and depending on a
study's setup, this mechanism may hardly be disentangled from particle
deposition and modification effects. In many studies, the dispersion
mechanism is regarded as the main factor for a barrier or filtration effect
of green space. The basic logic applied is that leeward of green spaces,

Table 3
Outcome indicators for vegetation-induced dispersion effects on PM concentrations.

Outcome indicator Unit Typical ranges Key publications

PM10 (coarse and fine) % reduction <16%A1, A1

(Rafael et al., 2018),
<32%A2, A2
(Mori et al., 2018),
<35%A3 A3
(Ottosen and Kumar, 2020)
PM2.5 (fine) % reduction 0–5%B1; B1
(Lee et al., 2018),
<14%B2, B2
(Abhijith and Kumar, 2019),
<20%B3, B3
(Zhang et al., 2020a),
<44%B4, B4
(Ottosen and Kumar, 2020),
<50%B5 B5
(Xing and Brimblecombe, 2020b)
PM1 % reduction <52%C1, C1
(Ottosen and Kumar, 2020),
<37% (PNC)C2 C2
(Al-Dabbous and Kumar, 2014)
PM0.1 (ultra-fine or UFP) % reduction <50% (PNC)D1, D1
(Lee et al., 2018),
<63% (PNC)D2 D2
(Lin et al., 2016)
BC (black carbon) % reduction 7–22%E1, E1
(Brantley et al., 2014),
<63%E2 E2
(Santiago et al., 2019)

Note: The table shows changes in PM concentration as calculated using modelling, experiments and real-world studies for which % reductions were measured either as luv- vs lee-ward
changes or with and without vegetation changes. Relative changes to PM concentrations are based on weight, unless noted “PNC” in brackets for particulate number concentration.

8
A. Diener and P. Mudu
dispersion effects can reduce PM concentrations (and modify composi-
tions) (see Fig. 3).
Overall, we observe that such dispersion mechanisms are particu-
larly studied at the local level. Many papers describe real-world mea-
surements and quasi-experimental setups with field measurement
campaigns (e.g. He et al., 2020). Steffens et al. (2012) and Steffens
et al. (2013) found models to be able to predict real-world measure-
ments of such barrier effects well, except for overpredictions in the
size range of small UPFs (below 50 nm). Dispersion has been studied
and discussed frequently to assess effects of green spaces at a local
level, both along streets or other pollution sources (emission) and
along urban hangout places like parks (exposure) (e.g. Janhäll, 2015).
Xing and Brimblecombe (2020a) conclude upon their bibliometric anal-
ysis that studies including dispersion in their air pollution mitigation
analysis of green spaces are less consistently reporting pollutant reduc-
tions than those focusing on deposition. We found several papers
underlining possible pollution concentration effects by dispersion, par-
ticularly if exposure is critical between pollution source and green
space, below green space structures (e.g. tree crowns) or if the green
space reduces ventilation and thus dilution in critical locations, such
as analysed by the reviews of Xing and Brimblecombe (2019) and
Abhijith et al. (2017). The issue of ventilation for air pollution exposure
is discussed beyond the scope of green spaces and this review. Examples
are Peng et al. (2020), who reviewed indices for outdoor ventilation,
while Zhang et al. (2020b) reviewed street canyons from an perspective
on air pollution exposure at street level and ventilation effects.
For its deposition function, particularly the overall setup of green
spaces seems critical. On the one hand, height, depth and density of
the plant structures and, on the other hand, its location and alignment
between emission sources and areas with exposed persons have been
identified as two main determinants for an effective utilisation of
green spaces' dispersion mechanism (e.g. Deshmukh et al., 2019).
Both groups of factors complement each other, as Blanuša et al.
(2020) suggests that for plant species with generally low capacity for
particle capture, a notable concentration reduction would require a
hedge depth of at least two meters. The mechanism of dispersion
is closely linked with a likely health-protective effect of vegetation
barriers as in their intended or unintended function of keeping
people away from pollution sources as a physical barrier (Xing and
Brimblecombe, 2019).
This means in turn, that results are expected to vary greatly depend-
ing on the exposure or measurement location relative to the green
space. Hence, research results are hardly comparable unless both groups
of factors are clearly defined. Several studies compared “green barriers”
with solid artificial walls and combinations thereof. Vegetation effects
Fig. 3. Symbolic illustration of a green space's dispersion mechanism with its filter effect. Source: own design.
9
Science of the Total Environment 796 (2021) 148605
can be significant if combined with a noise wall – particularly at low
wind speeds (Ranasinghe et al., 2019). Dispersion affects not only the
trajectory and velocity of airborne PM, but also local patterns of air
movement as a whole. In early reviews, the effect of green spaces on
ventilation was discussed as a separate and key issue (e.g. Warren,
1973).
In recent publications, ventilation is frequently discussed as being
reduced by certain plant setups, for instance trees in urban street can-
yons. Avoidance of adverse exposure effects of green spaces is crucial,
as is a reflection of the general mechanism of ventilation as a key passive
intervention for the reduction of air pollution concentrations (and pos-
sibly toxicity if different fractions of PM were affected with different in-
tensities). Recommendations were made to avoid dense rows of trees
and to use hedges in street canyons (e.g. Vos et al., 2013). Resulting ex-
posure reductions through dispersion can vary greatly with the exact lo-
cation of exposure measurement, as spatial concentration patterns can
be strongly affected by the local wind scheme (e.g. Baldauf et al., 2008).
Using long-term averages, Ottosen and Kumar (2020) found highest
dispersion values for PM1(52%) > PM 2.5 (44%) and PM10 (35%).
Abhijith and Kumar (2020) found sub-micron PM1 to be blocked most
effectively compared to PM10 > PM2.5. Recent studies found reductions
of up to 63% for black carbon and 14% for PM2.5 (Santiago et al., 2019;
Abhijith and Kumar, 2019). With regards to the ideal green space
setup, they found a combination of trees and hedges optimal for close-
road (1 m) conditions and only hedges for setups in 2 m or more dis-
tance from the road. Also the distance between the barrier and exposure
is relevant, but situation-specific, as, for example Baldauf et al. (2008)
found optimal reductions 150-200 m away from a roadside barrier.
Xing and Brimblecombe (2019) suggests that, while deposition is not
a critical factor for urban parks, it can be critical for the removal of coarse
particles at the parks edges.
Modelling efforts by Morakinyo and Lam (2015) and Morakinyo and
Lam (2016) suggest that the share of dispersion versus deposition ef-
fects may depend on the green spaces' distance from emission sources.
Grzędzicka (2019) assessed a large park and conclude that their results
motivate the setup of a green barrier around the park. Lee et al. (2018)
found green walls to be more effective in reducing UFPs than noise
walls, with reverse results for PM2.5. Lin et al. (2016) also found UPF
concentrations halved by green barriers, measured during on-wind con-
ditions. A study by Alkalaj and Thorsteinsson (2014) compared UPF re-
ductions at a fixed distance to a road with and without a vegetation
barrier and found roughly a doubling in the reductive effect. Lateb
et al. (2016) calls for further research on micro-scale dispersion models
due to the complexity of wind flow and pollutant dispersion parame-
ters. Tiwari et al. (2019) finds current dispersion models not fit for air
A. Diener and P. Mudu
pollution exposure estimations. Notably, we find few study setups
concerning the exposure change for road users, such as covered by
Baldauf et al. (2016).
In terms of plant types, broad-leafed and coniferous plants only dif-
fer slightly in their dispersion potential as indicated by wind-tunnel
measurements (e.g. Guo et al., 2020). Blanuša et al. (2020) methodically
suggests gravimetric estimation of PM reduction as quick, cost-effective
and technically simple. For less effective plant species, they only found
noticeable PM reductions at depths larger than 2 m. He et al. (2020)
found hydrophilic leaves to better be able to reduce PM concentrations.
Several studies have been conducted on vegetation effects in urban
street canyons, with Karttunen et al. (2020) summarising their findings
to suggest that with “careful planning of the street vegetation, signifi-
cant reductions in pedestrian-level aerosol particle concentrations can
be obtained”. Xing and Brimblecombe (2020b) compared exposure sce-
narios for park users and conclude that park designs must consider ex-
posure reduction interventions at a rather fine scale, as some areas are
disproportionately frequented.
One mechanism mentioned by the first two reviews in the 1970s is
not being discussed in the most recent publications: the potential of
ventilation. The early reviews discuss vegetation planting to accelerate
and direct winds on local and city scales. This discussion seems to
have shifted towards (local) dispersion. On the contrary, green space
(inhibiting) effects on ventilation are frequently mentioned as possible
adverse side-effects.
3.4. Mechanism 3: modification of PM
A less commonly reviewed group of mechanisms are those altering
the inherent properties of PM, like its size. From a health perspective,
this can be relevant from two perspectives: (i) the alterations may ac-
celerate deposition (and subsequently, at least partially, removal) of
particles, i.e. larger and heavier particles or an altered solubility or load-
ing; while (ii) changed compositions or other plant-associated effects
may reduce the toxicity and concentration of particles. For green spaces'
mitigation PM effects, we summarise such mechanisms with the term
“modification”, which includes any modification of PM with possible al-
terations of its exposure risk for human health. On a side note: particu-
larly for mechanisms that change relative PM toxicity, either per weight
or particulate number unit, one may consider introducing “defanging”
as a more figurative and precise term. While current epidemiological
and toxicological evidence suggests that PM size and composition can
modify the health effects of PM by weight, concentration or surface
area, many uncertainties remain (e.g. Kelly and Fussell, 2020; Yang
et al., 2018; Park et al., 2018).
We observe that modification mechanisms are hardly studied in an
isolated manner from deposition processes for ambient PM. Individual
pollutant constituents and size fractions seem to play a larger role in
indoor air quality improvement – several decades ago as (Wolverton
et al., 1989) and still today (Han and Ruan, 2020; Irga et al., 2018).
Furthermore, different reviews have discussed a broader perspective
of “net removal” of PM in assessing plant-soil-microbe processes
in the phyllosphere and rhizosphere as one may summarise as
phytoremediation (Weyens et al., 2015; Singh and Verma, 2007;
Espenshade et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2020). While differing health effects
depending on PM size are well established, the health relevance of al-
tered chemical and biological compositions of PM is suggested by sev-
eral reviews, but remains being a subject of discussion (e.g. Ali et al.,
2019; Bell and HEI Health Review Committee, 2012).
We identified three groups of modification mechanisms among re-
cent publications, namely: (i) selective sorption depending of individual
PM constituents (such as certain metals), (ii) microbiological modifica-
tion through microbes present on plant surfaces, often discussed as one
group of processes under the umbrella term of phytoremediation, and
(iii) chemical coagulation forces (such as Brownian or van-der-Waals
forces) (see Fig. 4).
10
Science of the Total Environment 796 (2021) 148605
On selective sorption, it has to be considered that species with the
highest accumulation of a single metal may not show the highest total
metal accumulation capacity (Hu et al., 2014), and that there is an
association between heavy metal concentrations in the air and in tree
rings (e.g. Turkyilmaz et al., 2019). Räsänen et al. (2017) assessed re-
ductions of titanium dioxide and found particles to have penetrated
the leaf's structure. Jia et al. (2020) found associations between foliar
toxic metal concentrations and dust retention amounts on the leaves'
surface, suggesting foliar uptake, which Shahid et al. (2017) rates as
understudied compared to root uptake. Han and Ruan (2020) assessed
88 indoor air quality studies to identify a general focus on individual
constituents of PM like formaldehyde or benzene – several of which
have been associated with severe health effects. Meyer et al. (2020)
points out the bioaccumulation potential for airborne metals by mosses,
while Hofman et al. (2017) discusses the potentials of bio-magnetic
monitoring of air pollutants using mosses. Research on biomonitoring
suggests large differences between plant species with regards to the ac-
cumulation of individual PM components, for instance for lead or cad-
mium (Jankowski et al., 2014).
For coagulation on or around plant structures, particularly small PM
or UFP are in focus. Wind tunnel experiments suggest that UFP are
bound to vegetation and coagulated largely by Brownian diffusion and
associated bonds (Lin et al., 2012). Yin et al. (2020) identified a coagula-
tion effect of UFPs on plant leaves, suggesting that upon resuspension
the average size of particles would be increased. Such may – besides de-
position – lead to increased average particle sizes and in turn lowered
PNCs, as analyses in indoor environments particularly suggest when
UFP PNCs are high and wind speeds low (Rim et al., 2012). Van
Ryswyk et al. (2019) differentiated the UFP concentrations across a
larger area including some vegetation elements. However, Pattinson
et al. (2017) shows reductions of UFP with distance to roadside, draw-
ing attention to the need for analyses to compare UFP reductions at
equal distances with and without vegetation barriers.
Microbiological effects on PM are often discussed at plant or ecosys-
tem level. Reviews on phytoremediation include assessments of pollut-
ant degradation and detoxification through microbial communities and
uptake and metabolization – and partially “modification” – of leaf and
soil-deposited PM by plant-soil-microbe systems (Gawronski et al.,
2017; Lee et al., 2020). Microbiological communities around plants
can affect PM remediation (Espenshade et al., 2019).
Furthermore, while plant emitted and associated biogenic volatile
organic compounds (BVOCs), pollen and spores are frequently listed
as potentially adverse side-effects of green interventions. Their roles in
how plants modify health-relevant properties of ambient PM remains
with many uncertainties. This is to be reflected upon when discussing
green spaces' effects on air quality. Generally, BVOC emissions have
been found to depend greatly, up to orders of magnitude, on plant
Fig. 4. Symbolic illustration of the three main types of modification mechanisms. Source:
own design.
A. Diener and P. Mudu
species, plant developmental stage, ecosystem and climatic factors such
as temperature and solar radiation (Roeland et al., 2019; Barwise and
Kumar, 2020; Holopainen and Gershenzon, 2010; Leung et al., 2011;
Nowak, 2019). The interaction of BVOCs with gaseous and particulate
air pollutants can be a significant source of secondary PM, particularly
UFPs (Ehn et al., 2014), with the scientific debate on health effects
appearing controversial and including indications of protective effects
(Mei et al., 2021). Interrelations between PM and vegetation can also in-
fluence the plants' mitigative capacity (Łukowski et al., 2020). This may
change effects in both directions: by causing increased wax production
and it can theoretically allow more adsorption, while reduced photo-
synthesis due to PM may reduce the plants metabolism and thus
phytoremediation potential.
Effect estimates of PM modification mechanisms by green spaces are
likely “hidden” among the effects estimated for deposition. Coagulation
may likely be included in PNC reductions for UFP or BC. Many estimates
for PM components like BC were provided without a differentiation of
the underlying mechanisms, as, for example Van Ryswyk et al. (2019)
estimates a park's BC removal at up to 74% - far higher than for other
PM constituents. Klingberg et al. (2017) found polycyclic aromatic hy-
drocarbons reduced at vegetated vs non-vegetated sites, while
Terzaghi et al. (2020) found 25% reductions of such concentrations in
leaves by biodegradation. Wang et al. (2019) found UFP reductions of
up to 79% (certain species) and attributed most of these reductions to
on-leaf deposition – which may include coagulation and other modifica-
tion effects.
The identified research suggests “modification” mechanisms to bear
possible health relevance for certain vegetation types and compositions.
These mechanisms may receive more attention along increasing scien-
tific evidence on the relative human health effect of individual PM com-
ponents. Particularly the oxidative potential of PM, being a key indicator
for the inflammatory potential of inhaled PM in exposed persons (e.g.
Goa et al., 2020), may motivate a closer look at modification mecha-
nisms of plants, including indirect – e.g. temperature-driven – effects.
4. Discussion
4.1. Green spaces' mitigation mechanisms for PM exposure
The assessed review papers published since 1973 and recent re-
search papers published since 2016 converge on the fact that green
spaces are able to reasonably reduce exposure to ambient, air-borne
PM at the local and at the regional scale. Green spaces by and at large
can cause PM to change trajectories, speed and other properties, or to
be removed from the air temporarily or permanently. While at the
urban or regional scale deposition or rather net removal appears as
the defining mechanism, at the local level, the relative effect of deposi-
tion, dispersion and modification depend on an interplay of local factors.
We arranged the key mechanisms and their effect logic summarised as
an intuitive if simplifying model without the aspiration to represent
quantitative estimates (Fig. 5). Green spaces can also favourably or ad-
versely affect ventilation as a critical factor for air quality in urban
areas: a deciduous hedge may block pollutants flows from entering a
garden in summer and from being diluted by wind in winter. The vege-
tation's leaves are found to be the most instrumental part of the plants
for air pollution reductions, however, researchers focusing on the rhizo-
sphere and its microbial communities' remediation capacities may chal-
lenge this view from an environmental system's perspective. Less
agreement can be observed for which of the leaves' properties are
most relevant for their mitigation potential. We observed that no re-
view covered all potentially relevant green space properties at once,
as may be attributable to the included disciplines and thus keywords –
a limitation that, of course, is also relevant for our review. Plants are
complex living organisms – and based on the assembled evidence, it ap-
pears critical to respect this complexity in planning interventions: the
setup and design of a green space can define potential adverse side-
11
Science of the Total Environment 796 (2021) 148605
effects like pollen or simply maintenance demand, as it can enhance
complementary benefits like temperature regulation or biodiversity en-
hancement. As Warren (1973 p.4) point out: “(even) if a particular
planting does not effectively influence the air pollution in the area,
that green space is not "lost" but can be utilized for many other socially
beneficial uses, such as recreation, watershed protection, commercial
forestry, urban wildlife, aesthetic enhancement”. Overall, the effect of
green spaces on our ambient air depends on number of factors besides
time and scale: some associated with the pollution concentrations,
sources and setup, some with the green spaces, and a number with
local meteorological and land use variables. Notably, changes of singular
variables have shown to be able to boost air quality amelioration effects
by orders of magnitude, but some can also reverse it.
4.2. Public health relevance at different scales
This review of recent publications and specialised reviews on PM
mitigation functions of green spaces confirms the expected multi-
disciplinarity of research around this topic. From an epidemiological
point of view, most studies could beclassified as “exposure science”.
We undertook this review in response to a dominance of natural science
approaches to green spaces and air pollution (Arantes et al., 2019), in
contrast to health sciences like epidemiology (Eisenman et al., 2019).
The discussion of this issue from a health perspective dates back more
than a century according to the earliest reviews by Smith (1977) and
Warren (1973). Based on the presented evidence, green spaces could
possibly mitigate the health burden of air pollution in multiple ways
with the targeted scale of the intervention defining options and require-
ments (Table 4).
At a local scale, the discussed barrier function, possibly combining all
three groups of mechanisms, appears promising from two perspectives:
firstly, to “shield” critical point (stationary) or line (mobile) emissions
from reaching, for instance, residential neighbourhoods and secondly
to “shelter” vulnerable populations, such as senior homes or kindergar-
tens and their outdoor areas, from local and background PM concentra-
tions. With knowledge about individual pollution sources, one may
even be able to target specific PM components, prioritised by toxicity,
based on the evolving research around “modification” mechanisms. No-
tably, Phillips et al. (2021) recently estimated that for the example of
Great Britain, half of the land area is located less than 216 m away
from a road – or potential line emissions source for that matter. Besides
the barrier function, green spaces set-up to maximise deposition and
net removal of PM or certain PM size ranges have shown to reduce
local concentrations, particularly during pollution peaks – which have
shown to be responsible particularly for short-term health effects.
At increasing scales, pollution levels influenced by traffic, industry or
other anthropogenic PM sources assimilate with urban before rural
background concentrations. We did not come across (quasi-)experi-
mental studies on the effect of green space interventions at that scale.
However, we interpret from the presented evidence that individually
well-designed green spaces can both lead to measurable overall net re-
moval of PM, and a temporary buffering of concentration peaks. Smith
(1977) had suggested large-scale tree planting to increase wind speeds
around pollution sources and accelerate dilution, while Zhang et al.
(2020c) discussed adverse circulation effects of current tree planting
practices in street canyons. Wind is suggested as a key determinant
for deposition, resuspension of PM on green spaces and in itself critically
influences PM concentrations. A consolidated approach may thus lever-
age the PM mitigation effect of green space interventions at a city or re-
gional scale.
Our findings suggest that any intervention should take into account
the urban morphology to avoid adverse ventilation effects of planted
vegetation. Besides optimization of the ventilation effect, the choice of
plants should minimize emissions with potentially adverse health ef-
fects (BVOCs, pollen or spores). Fig. 4 lists exemplary factors of mitigat-
ing mechanisms for a number of exposure situations at local and
A. Diener and P. Mudu Science of the Total Environment 796 (2021) 148605

Fig. 5. Logic framework of the PM exposure reduction by green space interventions (green/light arrows = net removal, yellow/medium arrows = delayed or modified PM exposure, red/
dense arrows = no effect on PM). Source: own design.

regional scales. Clearly, the sensitivity of green spaces' mitigation poten-
tial to its setup and local conditions, as shown by the numeric estimates
of current research presented in the results chapter, motivates a deliber-
ate approach to the discussed interventions. As common in food and
drinking-water management (WHO, 2017), we want to suggest the in-
troduction and harmonized adoption of a risk-based approach for green
space interventions aimed at minimizing human air pollution exposure.
4.3. Risk-based approach for green-space interventions to mitigate air
pollution
We have assessed the available evidence from a public health per-
spective, which as its core attempts to quantify and minimize health
risk. Transferring the terminology of risk-based management, as pro-
posed by WHO (2017), the health risk of an individual can be assessed
by combining the properties of the hazard (here: PM pollution) with
the human exposure probability, severity and vulnerability (whether
the general population for regional assessments or specific groups of
people – such as particularly vulnerable – for local assessments). Risk-
based management would aim to minimize the exposure to ambient
PM, while particularly focusing on vulnerable populations and locations
where exposure durations and the number of (vulnerable) people ex-
posed is highest (see Fig. 6). We conclude, that it is high time for in-
creased adoption of risk-based management principles in air pollution
management, as once transferred successfully from food to water
(Havelaar, 1994) and to sanitation (WHO, 2006b) risk management.
At a local level, exposures could also be targeted at emission “hotspots”
as already suggested by Beckett et al. (1998). This would allow green
space interventions to be targeted to the highest risk situations – and
plant selection and setup to be aimed at the most hazardous PM constit-
uents, for example, based on source apportionments (such as
summarised by Hopke et al. (2020)) and at the critical exposure times
and intensities (for instance physical activity with accelerated breath-
ing). The findings from indoor air quality studies and phytoremediation

Table 4
Overview of potential green space effects on five health-relevant PM exposure properties.

Output with health relevance Scale Exemplary mitigating mechanisms of green spaces Exemplary effect modifying factors

% reduction of average PM
concentration
% reduction of PM concentration
peaks
% reduction of UFP particulate
number concentration
% reduction of hazardous
compounds among PM
% reduction of direct exposure
(for example highway near
elderly home)
Regional “Removal” of PM upon interception by long-term ▪ Aggregate PM “removal” potential of green space(s) – i.e. function-
scale deposition on vegetation and on or in the ground or ing ecosystem to “capture” PM long-term
soil below ▪ Green space location in-between main pollution sources and
exposed populations
Local and Combination of physical dispersion vegetation and ▪ High aggregate dispersion and deposition potential of green space
regional elevated temporal deposition during concentration (s) during periods of peak concentrations (such as intact leave
scale peaks coverage during winter)
▪ Green space location near and (up-wind) of areas where possible
peak exposure affect most (vulnerable) people
Local scale Enhanced agglomeration and nucleation of UFP on ▪ Sorption ability of green space's leaves (for example, thickness of
leaves and long-term sorption by leaves' wax and wax layer or number and size of stomata)
stomata ▪ Local meteorological conditions (favorable for agglomeration and
nucleation of UFP on/near leaves)
Local and Selective sorption (for instance depending on ▪ Leaf properties that attract certain – possibly health critical –
regional loading and solubility) on plants compounds (such as electro-static adhesion on mosses)
scale ▪ Green space location near PM source with arrangement optimised
for targeted PM components
Local scale Blockage of PM from local sources by vegetation of ▪ Green space's distance to PM source, location in relation to wind
suitable properties (such as a down-wind hedge) direction and height an
▪ Density or porosity and heights of green space setup adjusted to
pollution source and exposure location

12
A. Diener and P. Mudu
Fig. 6. Schematic for a risk-based approach to green space utilisation for PM exposure mitigation. Source: own design.
studies thereby show the importance of not only viewing the effect of
plants, but of the associated ecosystem. The evidence presented in this
review motivates a reconsideration of how we approach urban air qual-
ity management – with green spaces as a nature-based solution (Ram
et al., 2015; van den Bosch and Sang, 2017). Also, we know from
urban contamination management that biota, soil, water and air are in-
terconnected pathways for pollutant transmission. The individual ef-
forts on understanding and quantifying deposition, modification,
wash-off or resuspension and phytoremediation can be puzzle pieces
for a more systemic approach. Finally, we must not underestimate the
effect of ventilation and other (micro)climatic factors on air pollution
that can enhance or impede the air quality amelioration effect of
green spaces. Consciously planned ventilation schemes in view of air-
borne pollution reduction has, for instance, been studied in Australia
by He et al. (2019). Also, urban PM concentration peaks are strongly as-
sociated with tropospheric temperature inversions, motivating to care-
fully consider interactions between green spaces' PM mitigation
abilities with ground-level air temperatures, pressure and humidity.
The development of risk-based green space interventions in turn
would motivate a systematic approach to filling evidence gaps and im-
proving our understanding on critical issues for green space's PM miti-
gation effects. A first step would be the isolation of suitable indicators
to quantify local or regional PM changes based on typically available in-
formation on vegetation and on local circumstances. These indicators
likely differ between the local and the regional levels (see supplemen-
tary material).
4.4. Research gaps and outlook
We presented the research gaps of the key topical reviews in Table 1.
Overall, the sum of research gaps explicitly pointed out or implicitly
resulting from an overarching perspective show large potential for
model and guidance improvements based on targeted real-life mea-
surements and experiments. Particularly the observed effect sensitivity
for changes in green space design and (temporal) differences in contex-
tual factors motivates systematic and robust assessments. The following
list of five research questions cannot be exhaustive, but attempts to cap-
ture the key research demands from the perspective of public health
interventions.
1) How can neighbouring research fields be incorporated to improve
mechanistic understanding of the discussed green space interven-
tions? The scanned literature for this review revealed three less inte-
grated perspectives: (a) one on biomonitoring of pollutants in plants
(e.g. Wolterbeek et al., 2010), a second one (b) on the effects of air
pollutants on plant and ecosystem health (e.g. Garrec, 2019), and
13
Science of the Total Environment 796 (2021) 148605
(c) a third one on plant emissions (e.g. Hyde and Mahalov, 2020)
and possible interaction with air-borne pollutants or indirect
effects on human health (such as by altering biodiversity or air
temperatures).
2) How can the discussed green space interventions be integrated into
a systemic (urban) pollution management? Several reviews discuss
the integration of green spaces in existing urban structure, like street
canyons or parks. However, despite the fact that we found many top-
ical publications to use the terms “remove”, “retain” or “mitigate”
when describing the effect of green spaces on PM, few look at the
fate of PM from a (human-environment) system perspective. What
happens to the PM once it has interacted with a plant? A sub-
group of research around bioremediation discusses how the fate of
individual PM particles or agglomerates may differ greatly – with
particle-dependent variables like solubility, persistency or bioaccu-
mulation potential differ defining further steps in the cycle – such
as by Zaitsev et al. (2020).
3) How can one improve representation of less studied green space
types and plant structures? Several reviews criticise the limitations,
particularly of deposition values, due to a focus on leaves. Also, at
least in the publications identified for this review, we noticed few as-
sessments of grasses as compared to trees and shrubs or hedges (ex-
pect, for instance, by Mori et al. (2018)). The analysed reviews
largely included studies from the Americas, Europe and Asia with a
focus on urban vegetation.
4) How can green space effects on air pollution better inform epidemi-
ological research or health impact assessments? Typically, epidemi-
ological studies on factors influencing mortality or morbidity in the
field of air pollution are conduced beyond a local scale, which, how-
ever, many of the identified exposure studies focus on. Markevych
et al. (2017) have discussed how rarely air pollution (including PM
specifically) are assessed as mediators rather than confounders in
epidemiological studies of the association between green spaces
and human health, while Dzhambov et al. (2020) found suboptimal
conduct and reporting of such mediation analyses in their scoping
review. Also Crouse et al. (2019) discussed the need to differentiate
between the main pathways by which green spaces affect human
health. Eisenman et al. (2019) cautions to take into account the epis-
temological reductionism and etiological simplification many stud-
ies of the natural science realm apply for the issue at hand. For
instance, Hewitt et al. (2020) estimates the distancing effect of
green spaces to pollution sources higher than its mitigating
mechanisms.
5) How can we consider the interactions of green spaces with (micro)
climatic variables? Bherwani et al. (2020) suggest an approach to
translate our understanding of urban microclimates to applied
A. Diener and P. Mudu
research. Developments in the understanding of urban ventilation
(e.g. Buccolieri and Hang, 2019) may play a role, as may temperature
and humidity effects (Francis and Jensen, 2017; Roeland et al., 2019)
– at regional levels, also precipitation (e.g. Shi et al., 2017). Each of
the named meteorological variables has been shown to be associated
with air pollution concentrations (e.g. Kinney, 2018) – with rele-
vance for PM through direct effects and through modifications of
secondary particle formation. Climate change influences the growth
conditions of urban vegetation. Beyond the microclimate perspec-
tive, the effects of increased or enhanced plant cover, particularly if
replacing areas with low functional value for climate change mitiga-
tion and/or adaptation (for instance areas with low albedo and/or
low precipitation permeability), can be considered climate-change
oriented measures (e.g. Fryd et al., 2011; Chiabai et al., 2018).
4.5. Limitations
The main limitation of the present review lies in the limited number
of studies identified in the primary and secondary searches. Due to our
restrictive inclusion criteria for the systematic search process, we ex-
cluded a number of studies that also evaluated the effects of green
spaces on PM and other air pollutants. Our reviews setup excluded re-
search results that have not been published in peer-reviewed journals
- with the well-known implications of publication bias. By focusing on
PM effects, we largely excluded possible interactions between other
air-borne pollutants, including the gaseous phase of (semi-)volatile
compounds associated with secondary PM. Research on PM typically fo-
cuses on inhalation as the exposure pathway, if specified at all, although
dermal contact and ingestion are alternative pathways that may be rel-
evant for green spaces (particularly if including food crops (e.g.
Przybysz et al., 2020)). We did not limit the article language explicitly,
but implicitly by using only English search terms, except for a couple
of hand searches in German, French, Italian, Russian and Spanish. For
the analysis, the methodological heterogeneity across studies increased
the breadth of information, but reduced its depth and comparability of
findings on individual aspects. The differing metrics used in the pub-
lished researches did not allow a quantitative meta-analysis of PM mit-
igation or deposition capacity. In fact, many studies did not provide the
complete information or documentation required to conduct a meta-
analysis for our research questions. Particularly, limited precision on
temporal and spatial scales and frequently incomplete documentation
of possible effect modifiers impede robust comparisons across
disciplines.
4.6. Conclusion
Green spaces' reductive effects on air-borne PM concentrations are
considerable, multi-mechanistic and varied by scale, context and vege-
tation characteristics. Such effect-modifying factors must be considered
when rethinking public space design, as accelerated by the COVID-19
pandemic. Weak linkages amid involved disciplines motivate the devel-
opment of a research framework to strengthen health-oriented guid-
ance. We conclude on an urgent need for an integrated and risk-based
approach to PM reduction through green space interventions.
Green spaces can improve the quality of the air we breathe. We
analysed historic and current evidence on the underlying mechanisms
and numeric estimates for green spaces' air quality amelioration poten-
tial. From a public health perspective aiming at reducing exposure to
PM, we identified three mechanisms: deposition, dispersion and modi-
fication. The PM mitigation effect depends on specific properties of the
pollutants, the green space's characteristics and a variety of spatial and
temporal factors, that differ depending on the spatial scale of the analy-
sis. The identified evidence suggests, that at a local scale, concentration
of certain PM size ranges may be halved – particularly “behind” well-
designed barriers with combined dispersion and deposition effects po-
tentially reducing exposures more effectively than concrete walls. At
14
Science of the Total Environment 796 (2021) 148605
the regional scale, relative changes in PM is estimated at single digit per-
centage values, which were found to be dominated by the dry deposi-
tion mechanism. Such values are comparable with effects of major
environmental policies. At the city-scale, we have to assume a degree
of homogeneity in terms of effects that are not necessarily the sum of
the local parts. Effect estimates vary in magnitude between particle
sizes with few researchers investigating green space effects on the com-
position and average size of PM. A “translation” of such estimates to
human health effects requires precise information on exposure, partic-
ularly for mechanisms – like dispersion – that predominantly have a
local effect. As several studies suggest that PM deposition increases
with its ambient concentration, one critical indicator for the short-
term health risk of air pollution, peak PM concentrations, may particu-
larly be affected.
Using whenever possible an interdisciplinary approach in linking
green spaces with human health will be crucial in facilitating health-
relevant improvements in spatial planning. Improvements that are to
be guided by a risk-based approach to effectively match green space in-
terventions with critical air pollution exposures.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The systematic review was funded by WHO as part of a Grant Agree-
ment with Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway. P.M. is a staff
member of the WHO. We are very grateful to Barbara Hoffmann for pro-
viding useful comments. This paper reflects the authors' views. The au-
thors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication,
and they do not necessarily represent the views, decisions, or policies
of the WHO.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148605.
References
Abhijith, K.V., Kumar, P., 2019. Field investigations for evaluating green infrastructure ef-
fects on air quality in open-road conditions. Atmos. Environ. 201 (December 2018),
132–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.12.036.
Abhijith, K.V., Kumar, P., 2020. Quantifying particulate matter reduction and their deposi-
tion on the leaves of green infrastructure. Environ. Pollut. 265 (B), 114884. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114884.
Abhijith, K.V., Kumar, P., Gallagher, J., McNabola, A., Baldauf, R., Pilla, F., ... Pulvirenti, B.,
2017. Air pollution abatement performances of green infrastructure in open road
and built-up street canyon environments – a review. Atmos. Environ. 162, 71–86.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.05.014.
Aerts, R., Honnay, O., Van Nieuwenhuyse, A., 2018. Biodiversity and human health: mech-
anisms and evidence of the positive health effects of diversity in nature and green
spaces. Br. Med. Bull. 127 (1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldy021.
Al-Dabbous, A.N., Kumar, P., 2014. The influence of roadside vegetation barriers on air-
borne nanoparticles and pedestrians exposure under varying wind conditions.
Atmos. Environ. 90, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.03.040.
Ali, M.U., Liu, G., Yousaf, B., Ullah, H., Abbas, Q., Munir, M.A.M., 2019. A systematic review
on global pollution status of particulate matter-associated potential toxic elements
and health perspectives in urban environment. Environ. Geochem. Health 41 (3),
1131–1162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-018-0203-z.
Alkalaj, J., Thorsteinsson, T., 2014. Effects of Vegetation on Traffic-Related Particulate Mat-
ter. University of Iceland. Environment and Natural Resources Retrieved from.
https://skemman.is/handle/1946/19915 [accessed 20 May 2021].
Annerstedt Van Den Bosch, M., Egorov, A.I., Mudu, P., Uscila, V., Barrdahl, M., Kruize, H., ...
Zurlyte, I., 2016. Development of an urban green space indicator and the public health
rationale. Scand. J. Public Health 44 (2), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1403494815615444.
Arantes, B.L., Mauad, T., Filho, D.F.D.S., 2019. Urban forests, air quality and health: a sys-
tematic review. Int. For. Rev. 21 (2), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1505/
146554819826606559.
A. Diener and P. Mudu
Atkinson, L.Z., Cipriani, A., 2018. How to carry out a literature search for a systematic re-
view: a practical guide. BJPsych Adv. 24 (2), 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1192/
bja.2017.3.
Badach, J., Dymnicka, M., Baranowski, A., 2020. Urban vegetation in air quality manage-
ment: a review and policy framework. Sustainability (Switz.) 12 (3), 1258. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su12031258.
Baldauf, R., Thoma, E., Khlystov, A., Isakov, V., Bowker, G., Long, T., Snow, R., 2008. Impacts
of noise barriers on near-road air quality. Atmos. Environ. 42 (32), 7502–7507.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.05.051.
Baldauf, R.W., Isakov, V., Deshmukh, P., Venkatram, A., Yang, B., Zhang, K.M., 2016. Influ-
ence of solid noise barriers on near-road and on-road air quality. Atmos. Environ. 129,
265–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.01.025.
Barwise, Y., Kumar, P., 2020. Designing vegetation barriers for urban air pollution abate-
ment: a practical review for appropriate plant species selection. Npj Clim. Atmos.
Sci. 3 (1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-0115-3.
Beckett, K.P., Freer-Smith, P.H., Taylor, G., 1998. Urban woodlands: their role in reducing
the effects of particulate pollution. Environ. Pollut. 99 (3), 347–360. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0269-7491(98)00016-5.
Bell, M.L., HEI Health Review Committee, 2012. Assessment of the health impacts of par-
ticulate matter characteristics. Res. Rep. Health Eff. Inst. (161), 5–38 Retrieved from:.
https://www.healtheffects.org/system/files/Bell-161.pdf [accessed 20 May 2021].
Bertold, M., Joachim, M., Hoa, N.X., Cuong, N.T., Van Sinh, N., Roeland, S., 2019. Particulate
matter accumulation capacity of plants in Hanoi, Vietnam. Environ. Pollut. 253
(2019), 1079–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.07.035.
Bherwani, H., Singh, A., Kumar, R., 2020. Assessment methods of urban microclimate and
its parameters: a critical review to take the research from lab to land. Urban Clim. 34,
100690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2020.100690.
Blanuša, T., Qadir, Z.J., Kaur, A., Hadley, J., Gush, M.B., 2020. Evaluating the effectiveness of
urban hedges as air pollution barriers: importance of sampling method, species char-
acteristics and site location. Environments - MDPI 7 (10), 1–21. https://doi.org/
10.3390/environments7100081.
Bramer, W.M., Rethlefsen, M.L., Kleijnen, J., Franco, O.H., 2017. Optimal database combina-
tions for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study.
Syst. Rev. 6 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y.
Brantley, H.L., Hagler, G.S.W., J. Deshmukh, P., Baldauf, R.W., 2014. Field assessment of the
effects of roadside vegetation on near-road black carbon and particulate matter. Sci.
Total Environ. 468–469, 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.08.001.
Buccolieri, R., Hang, J., 2019. Recent advances in urban ventilation assessment and flow
modelling. Atmosphere 10 (3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10030144.
Burns, J., Boogaard, H., Polus, S., Pfadenhauer, L.M., Rohwer, A.C., Van Erp, A.M., ...
Rehfuess, E., 2019. Interventions to reduce ambient particulatematter air pollution
and their effect on health. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019 (5). https://doi.org/
10.1002/14651858.CD010919.pub2.
Cai, M., Xin, Z., Yu, X., 2017. Spatio-temporal variations in PM leaf deposition: a meta-
analysis. Environ. Pollut. 231, 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.105.
Chiabai, A., Quiroga, S., Martinez-Juarez, P., Higgins, S., Taylor, T., 2018. The nexus between cli-
mate change, ecosystem services and human health: towards a conceptual framework.
Sci. Total Environ. 635, 1191–1204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.323.
Cohen, A.J., Brauer, M., Burnett, R., Anderson, H.R., Frostad, J., Estep, K., ... Forouzanfar,
M.H., 2017. Estimates and 25-year trends of the global burden of disease attributable
to ambient air pollution: an analysis of data from the global burden of diseases study
2015. Lancet 389 (10082), 1907–1918. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)
30505-6.
Cooper, C., Booth, A., Varley-Campbell, J., Britten, N., Garside, R., 2018. Defining the pro-
cess to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance
and supporting studies. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 18 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/
10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3.
Crouse, D.L., Pinault, L., Balram, A., Brauer, M., Burnett, R.T., Martin, R.V., ... Weichenthal, S.,
2019. Complex relationships between greenness, air pollution, and mortality in a
population-based Canadian cohort. Environ. Int. 128, 292–300. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.047.
Deshmukh, P., Isakov, V., Venkatram, A., Yang, B., Zhang, K.M., Logan, R., Baldauf, R., 2019.
The effects of roadside vegetation characteristics on local, near-road air quality. Air
Qual. Atmos. Health 12 (3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-018-0651-8.
Di, Q., Wang, Y., Zanobetti, A., Wang, Y., Koutrakis, P., Choirat, C., ... Schwartz, J.D., 2017. Air
pollution and mortality in the medicare population. N. Engl. J. Med. 376 (26),
2513–2522. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1702747.
Dzhambov, A.M., Browning, M.H.E.M., Markevych, I., Hartig, T., Lercher, P., 2020. Analytical
approaches to testing pathways linking greenspace to health: a scoping review of the
empirical literature. Environ. Res. 186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109613.
Egorov, A.I., Mudu, P., Braubach, M., Martuzzi, M., 2016. Urban Green Spaces and Health: A
Review of Evidence. WHO Regional Office for Europe Retrieved from. http://www.
euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/321971/Urban-green-spaces-and-health-
review-evidence.pdf?ua=1 [accessed 20 May 2021].
Ehn, M., Thornton, J.A., Kleist, E., Sipilä, M., Junninen, H., Pullinen, I., ... Mentel, T.F., 2014. A
large source of low-volatility secondary organic aerosol. Nature 506 (7489), 476–479.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13032.
Eisenman, T.S., Churkina, G., Jariwala, S.P., Kumar, P., Lovasi, G.S., Pataki, D.E., ... Whitlow,
T.H., 2019. Urban trees, air quality, and asthma: an interdisciplinary review. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 187, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.010.
Espenshade, J., Thijs, S., Gawronski, S., Bové, H., Weyens, N., Vangronsveld, J., 2019. Influ-
ence of urbanization on epiphytic bacterial communities of the platanus × hispanica
tree leaves in a biennial study. Front. Microbiol. 10 (APR). https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmicb.2019.00675.
15
Science of the Total Environment 796 (2021) 148605
Francis, L.F.M., Jensen, M.B., 2017. Benefits of green roofs: a systematic review of the ev-
idence for three ecosystem services. Urban For. Urban Green. 28 (October), 167–176.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.10.015.
Fryd, O., Pauleit, S., Bühler, O., 2011. The role of urban green space and trees in relation to
climate change. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science. Nutr. Nat.
Resour. 6 (053), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR20116053.
Garrec, J.-P., 2019. What is the impact of air pollutants on vegetation? Encycl. Environ.,
1–14 Retrieved from. https://www.encyclopedie-environnement.org/en/life/impact-
air-pollutants-on-vegetation [accessed 20 May 2021].
Gawronski, S.W., Gawronska, H., Lomnicki, S., Sæbo, A., Vangronsveld, J., 2017. Plants in
air phytoremediation. In: Cuypers, J., Vagronsveld, A. (Eds.), Advances in Botanical
Research. vol. 83. Elsevier Academic Press Inc, 525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego,
CA 92101-4495 USA, pp. 319–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.abr.2016.12.008.
Giardina, M., Buffa, P., 2018. A new approach for modeling dry deposition velocity of particles.
Atmos. Environ. 180 (March), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.02.038.
Goa, D., Ripley, S., Weichenthal, S., Godri Pollitt, K.J., 2020. Ambient particulate matter ox-
idative potential: chemical determinants, associated health effects, and strategies for
risk management. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 151, 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
freeradbiomed.2020.04.028.
Grant, M.J., Booth, A., 2009. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and as-
sociated methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J. 26 (2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.
Grzędzicka, E., 2019. Is the existing urban greenery enough to cope with current concen-
trations of PM2.5, PM10 and CO2? Atmos. Pollut. Res. 10 (1), 219–233. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apr.2018.08.002.
Guo, L., Zhao, D., Zhao, B., Li, J., Tong, J., Ma, Y., Chang, Z., 2020. Bio-inspired design and
evaluation of porous fences for mitigating fugitive dust. J. Bionic Eng. 17 (2),
370–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42235-020-0030-7.
Han, K.T., Ruan, L.W., 2020. Effects of indoor plants on air quality: a systematic review. En-
viron. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (14), 16019–16051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-
08174-9.
Han, D., Shen, H., Duan, W., Chen, L., 2020. A review on particulate matter removal capac-
ity by urban forests at different scales. Urban For. Urban Green. 48, 126565. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126565.
Havelaar, A.H., 1994. Application of HACCP to drinking water supply. Food Control 5 (3),
145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/0956-7135(94)90074-4.
He, B.J., Ding, L., Prasad, D., 2019. Enhancing urban ventilation performance through the
development of precinct ventilation zones: a case study based on the Greater Sydney,
Australia. Sustain. Cities Soc. 47, 101472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101472.
He, C., Qiu, K., Alahmad, A., Pott, R., 2020. Particulate matter capturing capacity of roadside
evergreen vegetation during the winter season. Urban For. Urban Green. 48 (October
2019), 126510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126510.
Hewitt, C.N., Ashworth, K., MacKenzie, A.R., 2020. Using green infrastructure to improve
urban air quality (GI4AQ). Ambio 49 (1), 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-
019-01164-3.
Hofman, J., Maher, B.A., Muxworthy, A.R., Wuyts, K., Castanheiro, A., Samson, R., 2017.
Biomagnetic monitoring of atmospheric pollution: a review of magnetic signatures
from biological sensors. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (12), 6648–6664. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.est.7b00832.
Holopainen, J.K., Gershenzon, J., 2010. Multiple stress factors and the emission of plant VOCs.
Trends Plant Sci. 15 (3), 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2010.01.006.
Honey-Rosés, J., Anguelovski, I., Chireh, V.K., Daher, C., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C., Litt,
J.S., ... Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., 2020. The impact of COVID-19 on public space: an early
review of the emerging questions – design, perceptions and inequities. Cities Health
00 (00), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.1780074.
Hopke, P.K., Dai, Q., Li, L., Feng, Y., 2020. Global review of recent source apportionments
for airborne particulate matter. Sci. Total Environ. 740, 140091. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140091.
Hu, Y., Wang, D., Wei, L., Zhang, X., Song, B., 2014. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals in
plant leaves from Yan’an city of the Loess Plateau, China. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.
110, 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.08.021.
Hyde, P., Mahalov, A., 2020. Contribution of bioaerosols to airborne particulate matter. J. Air
Waste Manage. Assoc. 70 (1), 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2019.1629360.
IHME, 2019. Global Burden of Disease. Global Health burden exchange. All-cause deaths in
2019 for air pollution. Retrieved from. http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool?
params=gbd-api-2019-permalink/45cdfe7d64a57471af4ba2c96dbf5617.
Irga, P.J., Pettit, T.J., Torpy, F.R., 2018. The phytoremediation of indoor air pollution: a re-
view on the technology development from the potted plant through to functional
green wall biofilters. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 17 (2), 395–415. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11157-018-9465-2.
Janhäll, S., 2015. Review on urban vegetation and particle air pollution - deposition and dis-
persion. Atmos. Environ. 105, 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.01.052.
Jankowski, K., Ciepiela, A.G., Jankowska, J., Szulc, W., Kolczarek, R., Sosnowski, J., ... Deska,
J., 2014. Content of lead and cadmium in aboveground plant organs of grasses grow-
ing on the areas adjacent to a route of big traffic. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22 (2),
978–987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3634-9.
Jeanjean, A.P.R., Monks, P.S., Leigh, R.J., 2016. Modelling the effectiveness of urban trees
and grass on PM2.5 reduction via dispersion and deposition at a city scale. Atmos. En-
viron. 147, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.09.033.
Jia, Y.Y., Wang, Q., Liu, T., 2017. Toxicity research of PM2.5 compositions in vitro. Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14 (3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030232.
Jia, M., Zhou, D., Lu, S., Yu, J., 2020. Assessment of foliar dust particle retention and toxic
metal accumulation ability of fifteen roadside tree species: relationship and mecha-
nism. Atmos. Pollut. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2020.08.003.
Karttunen, S., Kurppa, M., Auvinen, M., Hellsten, A., Järvi, L., 2020. Large-eddy simulation
of the optimal street-tree layout for pedestrian-level aerosol particle concentrations –
A. Diener and P. Mudu
a case study from a city-boulevard. Atmos. Environ. X 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aeaoa.2020.100073.
Kelly, F.J., Fussell, J.C., 2020. Toxicity of airborne particles - established evidence, knowl-
edge gaps and emerging areas of importance: topical aspects of particle toxicity.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 378 (2183). https://doi.org/10.1098/
rsta.2019.0322.
Kinney, P.L., 2018. Interactions of climate change, air pollution, and human health. Curr.
Environ. Health Rep. 5 (1), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-018-0188-x.
Klingberg, J., Broberg, M., Strandberg, B., Thorsson, P., Pleijel, H., 2017. Influence of urban veg-
etation on air pollution and noise exposure – a case study in Gothenburg, Sweden. Sci.
Total Environ. 599–600, 1728–1739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.051.
Kumar, P., Druckman, A., Gallagher, J., Gatersleben, B., Allison, S., Eisenman, T.S., ...
Morawska, L., 2019. The nexus between air pollution, green infrastructure and
human health. Environ. Int. 133 (October), 105181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2019.105181.
Kwak, M.J., Lee, J.K., Park, S., Kim, H., Lim, Y.J., Lee, K.A., ... Woo, S.Y., 2020. Surface-based
analysis of leaf microstructures for adsorbing and retaining capability of airborne par-
ticulate matter in ten woody species. Forests 11 (9), 946. https://doi.org/10.3390/
f11090946.
Labib, S.M., Lindley, S., Huck, J.J., 2020. Spatial dimensions of the influence of urban green-
blue spaces on human health: a systematic review. Environ. Res. 180(November
2019) (108869). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108869.
Lachowycz, K., Jones, A.P., 2013. Towards a better understanding of the relationship be-
tween greenspace and health: development of a theoretical framework. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 118, 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.012.
Lateb, M., Meroney, R.N., Yataghene, M., Fellouah, H., Saleh, F., Boufadel, M.C., 2016. On
the use of numerical modelling for near-field pollutant dispersion in urban environ-
ments - a review. Environ. Pollut. 208, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2015.07.039.
Lee, E.S., Ranasinghe, D.R., Ahangar, F.E., Amini, S., Mara, S., Choi, W., ... Zhu, Y., 2018. Field
evaluation of vegetation and noise barriers for mitigation of near-freeway air pollu-
tion under variable wind conditions. Atmos. Environ. 175, 92–99. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.11.060.
Lee, B.X.Y., Hadibarata, T., Yuniarto, A., 2020. Phytoremediation mechanisms in air pollu-
tion control: a review. Water Air Soil Pollut. 231 (8), 437. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11270-020-04813-6.
Lefebvre, C., Glanville, J., Briscoe, S., Littlewood, A., Marshall, C., Metzendorf, M., ...
Wieland, L.S., 2019. Searching for and selecting studies. Cochrane Handbook for
Systematic Reviews of Interventions, pp. 67–107 https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781119536604.ch4.
Letter, C., Jäger, G., 2020. Simulating the potential of trees to reduce particulate matter
pollution in urban areas throughout the year. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 22 (5),
4311–4321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00385-6.
Leung, D.Y.C., Tsui, J.K.Y., Chen, F., Wing-Kin, Y., Vrijmoed, L.L.P., Chun-Ho, L., 2011. Effects
of urban vegetation on urban air quality. Landsc. Res. 36 (2), 173–188. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01426397.2010.547570.
Lin, M., Katul, G.G., Khlystov, A., 2012. A branch scale analytical model for predicting the
vegetation collection efficiency of ultrafine particles. Atmos. Environ. 51, 293–302.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.01.004.
Lin, M.Y., Hagler, G., Baldauf, R., Isakov, V., Lin, H.Y., Khlystov, A., 2016. The effects of
vegetation barriers on near-road ultrafine particle number and carbon monoxide
concentrations. Sci. Total Environ. 553, 372–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2016.02.035.
Litschike, T., Kuttler, W., 2008. On the reduction of urban particle concentration by vege-
tation - a review. Meteorol. Z. 17 (3), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/
2008/0284.
Liu, L., Guan, D., Peart, M.R., Wang, G., Zhang, H., Li, Z., 2013. The dust retention capacities
of urban vegetation-a case study of Guangzhou, South China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
20 (9), 6601–6610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1648-3.
Livoreil, B., Glanville, J., Haddaway, N.R., Bayliss, H., Bethel, A., De Lachapelle, F.F., ...
Frampton, G., 2017. Systematic searching for environmental evidence using multiple
tools and sources. Environ. Evid. 6 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-017-
0099-6.
Łukowski, A., Popek, R., Karolewski, P., 2020. Particulate matter on foliage of Betula
pendula, Quercus robur, and Tilia cordata: deposition and ecophysiology. Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (10), 10296–10307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-07672-0.
Markevych, I., Schoierer, J., Hartig, T., Chudnovsky, A., Hystad, P., Dzhambov, A.M., ...
Fuertes, E., 2017. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: theoretical and
methodological guidance. Environ. Res. 158, 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envres.2017.06.028.
McDonald, A.G., Bealey, W.J., Fowler, D., Dragosits, U., Skiba, U., Smith, R.I., ... Nemitz, E.,
2007. Quantifying the effect of urban tree planting on concentrations and depositions
of PM10 in two UK conurbations. Atmos. Environ. 41 (38), 8455–8467. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.07.025.
McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D.M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., Lefebvre, C., 2016. PRESS
peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J. Clin.
Epidemiol. 75, 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021.
Mei, P., Vaishali, M., Harper, R.W., Jiménez, J.M., 2021. Air pollution, human health and the
benefits of trees: a biomolecular and physiologic perspective. Arboricultural J. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2020.1854995.
Meyer, C., Leblond, S., Jacquemin, B., Lequy, É., 2020. Metals, air pollution, and health:
mosses to the rescue of epidemiology. Medecine/Sciences 36 (4), 376–381. https://
doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2020062.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Altman, D., Antes, G., ... Tugwell, P., 2009.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA
statement. PLoS Med. 6 (7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
16
Science of the Total Environment 796 (2021) 148605
Morakinyo, T.E., Lam, Y.F., 2015. A simple technique to improve pollutant reduction effi-
ciency and mass removal by near-road vegetation barriers. ICUC9 - 9th International
Conference on Urban Climate and 12th Symposium on the Urban Environment , p. 1
Retrieved from. http://www.meteo.fr/icuc9/LongAbstracts/ccma6-2-1331091_a.pdf
[accessed 20 May 2021].
Morakinyo, T.E., Lam, Y.F., 2016. Simulation study of dispersion and removal of particulate
matter from traffic by road-side vegetation barrier. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23 (7),
6709–6722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5839-y.
Mori, J., Fini, A., Galimberti, M., Ginepro, M., Burchi, G., Massa, D., Ferrini, F., 2018. Air pol-
lution deposition on a roadside vegetation barrier in a Mediterranean environment:
combined effect of evergreen shrub species and planting density. Sci. Total Environ.
643, 725–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.217.
Muka, T., Glisic, M., Milic, J., Verhoog, S., Bohlius, J., Bramer, W., ... Franco, O.H., 2020. A 24-
step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review
and meta-analysis in medical research. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 35 (1), 49–60. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10654-019-00576-5.
Neira, M., Prüss-Ustün, A., 2016. Preventing disease through healthy environments: a
global assessment of the environmental burden of disease. Toxicol. Lett. 259, S1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2016.07.028.
Nemitz, E., Vieno, M., Carnell, E., Fitch, A., Steadman, C., Cryle, P., ... Jones, L., 2020. Potential
and limitation of air pollution mitigation by vegetation and uncertainties of
deposition-based evaluations. Philos. Transact. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 378 (2183),
20190320. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2019.0320.
Nowak, D.J., 2014. Urban Tree Effects on Fine Particulate Matter and Human Health. Ar-
borist News, pp. 64–67 April 2014. Retrieved from. https://www.fs.usda.gov/
treesearch/pubs/download/46517.pdf [accessed 20 May 2021].
Nowak, D.J., 2019. The atmospheric system: Air quality and greenhouse gases. In: Hall, M.,
Balogh, S. (Eds.), Understanding Urban Ecology. Springer, Cham https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-11259-2_8.
Nowak, David J., Hirabayashi, S., Doyle, M., McGovern, M., Pasher, J., 2018. Air pollution re-
moval by urban forests in Canada and its effect on air quality and human health.
Urban For. Urban Green. 29, 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.10.019.
Ohlwein, S., Kappeler, R., Kutlar Joss, M., Künzli, N., Hoffmann, B., 2019. Health effects of
ultrafine particles: a systematic literature review update of epidemiological evidence.
Int. J. Public Health 64 (4), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-019-01202-7.
Ottelé, M., van Bohemen, H.D., Fraaij, A.L.A., 2010. Quantifying the deposition of particu-
late matter on climber vegetation on living walls. Ecol. Eng. 36 (2), 154–162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2009.02.007.
Ottosen, T.B., Kumar, P., 2020. The influence of the vegetation cycle on the mitigation of
air pollution by a deciduous roadside hedge. Sustain. Cities Soc. 53(October 2019)
(101919). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101919.
Pace, R., Grote, R., 2020. Deposition and Resuspension mechanisms into and from tree
canopies: a study modeling particle removal of conifers and broadleaves in different
cities. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 3, 265–276. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00026.
Park, M., Joo, H.S., Lee, K., Jang, M., Kim, S.D., Kim, I., ... Park, K., 2018. Differential toxicities
of fine particulate matters from various sources. Sci. Rep. 8 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41598-018-35398-0.
Park, S., Kim, S., Lee, J., 2020. A pilot study on the relationship between urban green spaces
and fine particulate matter. Int. J. Geospatial Environ. Res. 7 (1) Retrieved from:.
https://dc.uwm.edu/ijger/vol7/iss1/3 [accessed 20 May 2021].
Pattinson, W., Kingham, S., Longley, I., Salmond, J., 2017. Potential pollution exposure re-
ductions from small-distance bicycle lane separations. J. Transp. Health 4, 40–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2016.10.002.
Pegas, P.N., Alves, C.A., Nunes, T., Bate-Epey, E.F., Evtyugina, M., Pio, C.A., 2012. Could house-
plants improve indoor air quality in schools? J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part A Curr.
Issues 75 (22−23), 1371–1380. https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2012.721169.
Peng, Y., Buccolieri, R., Gao, Z., Ding, W., 2020. Indices employed for the assessment of
“urban outdoor ventilation” - a review. Atmos. Environ. 223 (December 2019).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.117211.
Petroff, A., Mailliat, A., Amielh, M., Anselmet, F., 2008. Aerosol dry deposition on vegeta-
tive canopies. Part I: review of present knowledge. Atmos. Environ. 42 (16),
3625–3653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.09.043.
Phillips, B.B., Bullock, J.M., Osborne, J.L., Gaston, K.J., 2021. Spatial extent of road pollution: a
national analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145589.
Popek, R., Haynes, A., Przybysz, A., Robinson, S.A., 2019. How much doesweather matter?
Effects of rain and wind on PM accumulation by four species of Australian native
trees. Atmosphere 10 (10), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10100633.
Pouso, S., Borja, A., Fleming, L.E., Gómez-Baggethun, E., White, M.P., Uyarra, M.C., 2021.
Contact with blue-green spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown beneficial
for mental health. Sci. Total Environ. 756 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.143984.
Pryor, S.C., Gallagher, M., Sievering, H., Larsen, S.E., Barthelmie, R.J., Birsan, F., ... Vesala, T.,
2008. A review of measurement and modelling results of particle atmosphere-surface
exchange. Tellus Ser. B Chem. Phys. Meteorol. 60 B (1), 42–75. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1600-0889.2007.00298.x.
Przybysz, A., Stępniak, A., Małecka-Przybysz, M., Zhu, C.Y., Winska-Krysiak, M., 2020. Par-
ticulate matter accumulation on apples and plums: roads do not represent the
greatest threat. Agronomy 10 (11), 1709. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/10/
11/1709.
Pugh, T.A.M., MacKenzie, A.R., Whyatt, J.D., Hewitt, C.N., 2012. Effectiveness of green infra-
structure for improvement of air quality in urban street canyons. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 46 (14), 7692–7699. https://doi.org/10.1021/es300826w.
Rafael, S., Vicente, B., Rodrigues, V., Miranda, A.I., Borrego, C., Lopes, M., 2018. Impacts of
green infrastructures on aerodynamic flow and air quality in Porto’s urban area.
Atmos. Environ. 190, 317–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.07.044.
A. Diener and P. Mudu
Ram, S.S., Majumder, S., Chaudhuri, P., Chanda, S., Santra, S.C., Chakraborty, A., Sudarshan,
M., 2015. A review on air pollution monitoring and management using plants with
special reference to foliar dust adsorption and physiological stress responses. Crit.
Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (23), 2489–2522. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10643389.2015.1046775.
Ranasinghe, D., Lee, E.S., Zhu, Y., Frausto-Vicencio, I., Choi, W., Sun, W., ... Paulson, S.E.,
2019. Effectiveness of vegetation and sound wall-vegetation combination barriers
on pollution dispersion from freeways under early morning conditions. Sci. Total En-
viron. 658, 1549–1558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.159.
Räsänen, J.V., Leskinen, J.T.T., Holopainen, T., Joutsensaari, J., Pasanen, P., Kivimäenpää, M.,
2017. Titanium dioxide (TiO2) fine particle capture and BVOC emissions of Betula
pendula and Betula pubescens at different wind speeds. Atmos. Environ. 152,
345–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.01.003.
Rim, D., Green, M., Wallace, L., Persily, A., Choi, J. Il, 2012. Evolution of ultrafine particle
size distributions following indoor episodic releases: relative importance of coagula-
tion, deposition and ventilation. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 46 (5), 494–503. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02786826.2011.639317.
Roeland, S., Moretti, M., Amorim, J.H., Branquinho, C., Fares, S., Morelli, F., ... Calfapietra, C.,
2019. Towards an integrative approach to evaluate the environmental ecosystem ser-
vices provided by urban forest. J. For. Res. 30 (6), 1981–1996. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11676-019-00916-x.
Rojas-Rueda, D., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Gascon, M., Perez-Leon, D., Mudu, P., 2019. Green
spaces and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Lancet
Planet. Health 3 (11), 469–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(19)30215-3.
Roupsard, P., Amielh, M., Maro, D., Coppalle, A., Branger, H., Connan, O., ... Talbaut, M.,
2013. Measurement in a wind tunnel of dry deposition velocities of submicron aero-
sol with associated turbulence onto rough and smooth urban surfaces. J. Aerosol Sci.
55, 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2012.07.006.
Sampson, M., McGowan, J., 2006. Errors in search strategies were identified by type and
frequency. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 59 (10), 1057.e1–1057.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclinepi.2006.01.007.
Santiago, J.L., Buccolieri, R., Rivas, E., Calvete-Sogo, H., Sanchez, B., Martilli, A., ... Martin, F.,
2019. CFD modelling of vegetation barrier effects on the reduction of traffic-related
pollutant concentration in an avenue of Pamplona, Spain. Sustain. Cities Soc., 48
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101559.
Saylor, R.D., Baker, B.D., Lee, P., Tong, D., Pan, L., Hicks, B.B., 2019. The particle dry deposi-
tion component of total deposition from air quality models: right, wrong or uncer-
tain? Tellus Ser. B Chem. Phys. Meteorol. 71 (1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/
16000889.2018.1550324.
Schaubroeck, T., Deckmyn, G., Neirynck, J., Staelens, J., Adriaenssens, S., Dewulf, J., ...
Verheyen, K., 2014. Multilayered modeling of particulate matter removal by a grow-
ing forest over time, from plant surface deposition to washoff via rainfall. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 48 (18), 10785–10794. https://doi.org/10.1021/es5019724.
Shaddick, G., Thomas, M.L., Mudu, P., Ruggeri, G., Gumy, S., 2020. Half the world’s popu-
lation are exposed to increasing air pollution. NPJ Clim. Atmos. Sci. 3 (1), 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-0124-2.
Shahid, M., Dumat, C., Khalid, S., Schreck, E., Xiong, T., Niazi, N.K., 2017. Foliar heavy metal
uptake, toxicity and detoxification in plants: a comparison of foliar and root metal
uptake. J. Hazard. Mater. 325, 36–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.11.063.
Shi, P., Bai, X., Kong, F., Fang, J., Gong, D., Zhou, T., ... Chen, D., 2017. Urbanization and air
quality as major drivers of altered spatiotemporal patterns of heavy rainfall in China.
Landsc. Ecol. 32 (8), 1723–1738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0538-3.
Shin, H.J., Cho, H.G., Park, C.K., Park, K.H., Lim, H. Bin, 2017. Comparative in vitro biological
toxicity of four kinds of air pollution particles. Toxicol. Res. 33 (4), 305–313. https://
doi.org/10.5487/TR.2017.33.4.305.
Sicard, P., Agathokleous, E., Araminiene, V., Carrari, E., Hoshika, Y., De Marco, A., Paoletti,
E., 2018. Should we see urban trees as effective solutions to reduce increasing
ozone levels in cities? Environ. Pollut. 243, 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2018.08.049.
Sillars-Powell, L., Tallis, M.J., Fowler, M., 2020. Road verge vegetation and the capture of
particulate matter air pollution. Environments - MDPI 7 (10), 1–19. https://doi.org/
10.3390/environments7100093.
Singh, S.N., Verma, A., 2007. Phytoremediation of air pollutants: a review. Environmental
Bioremediation Technologies. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,
pp. 293–314 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-34793-4_13.
Smith, W.H., 1977. Removal of atmospheric particulates by urban vegetation: implica-
tions for human and vegetative health. Yale J. Biol. Med. 50 (2), 185–197 PMID:
331695. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/331695/.
Smith, W.H., Staskawicz, B.J., 1977. Removal of atmospheric particles by leaves and twigs
of urban trees: some preliminary observations and assessment of research needs. En-
viron. Manag. 1 (4), 317–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01865859.
Steffens, J.T., Wang, Y.J., Zhang, K.M., 2012. Exploration of effects of a vegetation barrier on
particle size distributions in a near-road environment. Atmos. Environ. 50, 120–128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.12.051.
Steffens, J.T., Heist, D.K., Perry, S.G., Zhang, K.M., 2013. Modeling the effects of a solid bar-
rier on pollutant dispersion under various atmospheric stability conditions. Atmos.
Environ. 69, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.11.051.
Sun, Z., Zhu, D., 2019. Exposure to outdoor air pollution and its human-related health out-
comes: an evidence gap map. BMJ Open 9 (12), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmjopen-2019-031312.
Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., Booth, A., 2019. Meeting the review family: exploring
review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Inf. Libr. J.
36 (3), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276.
Taylor, L., Hochuli, D.F., 2017. Defining greenspace: multiple uses across multiple disciplines.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 158, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.024.
17
Science of the Total Environment 796 (2021) 148605
Terzaghi, E., Wild, E., Zacchello, G., Cerabolini, B.E.L., Jones, K.C., Di Guardo, A., 2013. Forest
filter effect: role of leaves in capturing/releasing air particulate matter and its associated
PAHs. Atmos. Environ. 74, 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.04.013.
Terzaghi, E., De Nicola, F., Cerabolini, B.E.L., Posada-Baquero, R., Ortega-Calvo, J.J., Di
Guardo, A., 2020. Role of photo- and biodegradation of two PAHs on leaves: Model-
ling the impact on air quality ecosystem services provided by urban trees. Sci. Total
Environ. 739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139893.
The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Bio-
diversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. UNEP/Earthprint Retrieved from:.
http://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/
Ecological%20and%20Economic%20Foundations/TEEB%20Ecological%20and%20Eco-
nomic%20Foundations%20report/TEEB%20Foundations.pdf [accessed 20 May 2021].
Thurston, G.D., Kipen, H., Annesi-Maesano, I., Balmes, J., Brook, R.D., Cromar, K., ...
Brunekreef, B., 2017. A joint ERS/ATS policy statement: what constitutes an adverse
health effect of air pollution? An analytical framework. Eur. Respir. J. 49 (1),
1600419. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00419-2016.
Tiwari, A., Kumar, P., Baldauf, R., Zhang, K.M., Pilla, F., Di Sabatino, S., ... Pulvirenti, B., 2019.
Considerations for evaluating green infrastructure impacts in microscale and macro-
scale air pollution dispersion models. Sci. Total Environ. 672, 410–426. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.350.
Turkyilmaz, A., Sevik, H., Isinkaralar, K., Cetin, M., 2019. Use of tree rings as a bioindicator
to observe atmospheric heavy metal deposition. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26 (5),
5122–5130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3962-2.
van den Bosch, M., Sang, Ode, 2017. Urban natural environments as nature-based solu-
tions for improved public health – a systematic review of reviews. Environ. Res.
158, 373–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.05.040.
Van Ryswyk, K., Prince, N., Ahmed, M., Brisson, E., Miller, J.D., Villeneuve, P.J., 2019. Does
urban vegetation reduce temperature and air pollution concentrations? Findings
from an environmental monitoring study of the central experimental farm in Ottawa,
Canada. Atmos. Environ. 218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.116886.
Viecco, M., Vera, S., Jorquera, H., Bustamante, W., Gironás, J., Dobbs, C., Leiva, E., 2018. Po-
tential of particle matter dry deposition on green roofs and living walls vegetation for
mitigating urban atmospheric pollution in semiarid climates. Sustainability (Switz.)
10 (7), 2431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072431.
Vienneau, D., de Hoogh, K., Faeh, D., Kaufmann, M., Wunderli, J.M., Röösli, M., 2017. More
than clean air and tranquillity: residential green is independently associated with de-
creasing mortality. Environ. Int. 108 (August), 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2017.08.012.
Viippola, V., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Järvi, L., Kulmala, M., Setälä, H., 2020. Effects of forests on par-
ticle number concentrations in near-road environments across three geographic re-
gions. Environ. Pollut. 266 (2), 115294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115294.
Vos, P.E.J., Maiheu, B., Vankerkom, J., Janssen, S., 2013. Improving local air quality in cities:
to tree or not to tree? Environ. Pollut. 183, 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2012.10.021.
Wang, H., Maher, B.A., Ahmed, I.A.M., Davison, B., 2019. Efficient removal of ultrafine par-
ticles from diesel exhaust by selected tree species: implications for roadside planting
for improving the quality of urban air. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53 (12), 6906–6916.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06629.
Warren, J.L., 1973. Green Space for Air Pollution Control. Council of Planning Librarians,
Monticello, Il Retrieved from. http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=93390 [accessed 20
May 2021].
Weerakkody, U., Dover, J.W., Mitchell, P., Reiling, K., 2018. Quantification of the traffic-
generated particulate matter capture by plant species in a living wall and evaluation
of the important leaf characteristics. Sci. Total Environ. 635, 1012–1024. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.106.
Weyens, N., Thijs, S., Popek, R., Witters, N., Przybysz, A., Espenshade, J., ... Gawronski, S.W.,
2015. The role of plant–microbe interactions and their exploitation for
phytoremediation of air pollutants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 16 (10), 25576–25604. https://
doi.org/10.3390/ijms161025576.
Wolf, K.L., Lam, S.T., McKeen, J.K., Richardson, G.R.A., Bosch, M. van den, Bardekjian, A.C.,
2020. Urban trees and human health: a scoping review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 17 (12), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124371.
Wolterbeek, B., Sarmento, S., Verburg, T., 2010. Is there a future for biomonitoring of ele-
mental air pollution? A review focused on a larger-scaled health-related (epidemio-
logical) context. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 286 (1), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10967-010-0637-y.
Wolverton, B.C., Johnson, A., Bounds, K., 1989. A Study of Interior Landscape Plants for In-
door Air Pollution Abatement. NASA-TM101760. vol. 66 Retrieved from. https://ntrs.
nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930072988 [accessed 20 May 2021].
World Health Organization, 2006a. Air Quality Guidelines. Global Update 2005. https://
doi.org/10.1007/BF02986808.
World Health Organization, 2006b. Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater. vol. I.
World Health Organization Press, Geneva Retrieved from:. https://apps.who.int/iris/
bitstream/handle/10665/78265/9241546824_eng.pdf;jsessionid=A2D61652B7FA5-
E9784081F9C9021B0DB?sequence=1 [accessed 20 May 2021].
World Health Organization, 2017. Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality: Fourth
Edition Incorporating the First Addendum. World Health Organization Press,
Geneva Retrieved from:. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/
254636/9789241550017-eng.pdf?sequence=1 [accessed 20 May 2021].
World Health Organization, 2021. Green and Blue Spaces and Mental Health: New Evi-
dence and Perspectives for Action. WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen
(In press).
Xing, Y., Brimblecombe, P., 2019. Role of vegetation in deposition and dispersion of air
pollution in urban parks. Atmos. Environ. 201, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
atmosenv.2018.12.027.
A. Diener and P. Mudu
Xing, Y., Brimblecombe, P., 2020a. Trees and parks as “the lungs of cities.”. Urban For.
Urban Green. 48 (November 2019), 126552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.
126552.
Xing, Y., Brimblecombe, P., 2020b. Urban park layout and exposure to traffic-derived air
pollutants. Landsc. Urban Plan. 194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.
103682.
Xu, X., Xia, J., Gao, Y., Zheng, W., 2020. Additional focus on particulate matter wash-off
events from leaves is required: a review of studies of urban plants used to reduce air-
borne particulate matter pollution. Urban For. Urban Green. 48. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126559.
Yang, Y., Pun, V.C., Sun, S., Lin, H., Mason, T.G., Qiu, H., 2018. Particulate matter compo-
nents and health: a literature review on exposure assessment. J. Pub. Health Emerg.
2 (3), 14. https://doi.org/10.21037/jphe.2018.03.03.
Yin, S., Lyu, J., Zhang, X., Han, Y., Zhu, Y., Sun, N., ... Liu, C., 2020. Coagulation effect of aero
submicron particles on plant leaves: measuring methods and potential mechanisms.
Environ. Pollut., 257 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113611.
Zaitsev, G.A., Dubrovina, O.A., Shainurov, R.I., 2020. Iron and manganese migration in
“soil–plant” system in Scots pine stands in conditions of contamination by the steel
18
Science of the Total Environment 796 (2021) 148605
plant’s emissions. Sci. Rep. 10 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-
68114-y.
Zhang, Z., Liu, J., Wu, Y., Yan, G., Zhu, L., Yu, X., 2017. Multi-scale comparison of the fine
particle removal capacity of urban forests and wetlands. Sci. Rep. 7. https://doi.org/
10.1038/srep46214.
Zhang, J., Yu, Z., Zhao, B., Sun, R., Vejre, H., 2020a. Links between green space and public
health: a bibliometric review of global research trends and future prospects from
1901 to 2019. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (6), 063001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/ab7f64.
Zhang, L., Zhang, Z., McNulty, S., Wang, P., 2020b. The mitigation strategy of automobile
generated fine particle pollutants by applying vegetation configuration in a street-
canyon. J. Clean. Prod. 274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122941.
Zhang, Y., Gu, Z., Yu, C.W., 2020c. Impact factors on airflow and pollutant dispersion in
urban street canyons and comprehensive simulations: a review. Curr. Pollut. Rep.,
425–439 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-020-00166-0.